L.A. Bd of Ed approves expansion of charter schools: 200 + 50 new ones built with public money

[Hannah Bell]

On August 25, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted 6 to 1 to turn over more than 250 schools...to become charter schools. In doing so, the board is moving forward with a right-wing attack on public education that is being pushed at the state-wide level by the Schwarzenegger administration and at the national level by President Obama...

The vote by the LAUSD allows Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines to determine the best method for running 200 currently “failing” schools and 50 new schools slated for opening in the coming years. This decision opens the way for charter school companies to bid for oversight of these campuses. A Los Angeles Times article published on August 26 described the 50 new schools, whose multimillion-dollar facilities will be built with public money, as “the biggest prize” for the charter school companies...

Voting in favor of the motion, Board member Yolie Flores Aguilar said, “The premise of the resolution is first and foremost to create choice and competition and to really force and pressure the district to put forth a better educational plan.”

This statement by Flores, as well as the entire claim that the growth of the charter school system will improve the education in Los Angeles, is a fraud. The very people who are forcing through charter schools have just implemented hundreds of millions of dollars of cuts to education and imposed widespread layoffs in the schools.

Just this year alone, the LA School Board voted to eliminate 5,400 teachers’ jobs...& approved cuts of $1.6 billion from the LAUSD budget over the next three years... Governor Schwarzenegger is aggressively backing the passage of a bill, currently under debate in the state legislature, which would radically transform the educational system in California...

California would then become eligible to compete with other states for Obama’s paltry educational stimulus funds, which would allocate a mere $4.3 billion in education monies to all states combined. This sum equals approximately half of the $8.1 billion that California alone cut from education in the current fiscal year.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/laed-s08.shtml


As an earlier article commented, these contracts are attracting investment funds & corporate money in anticipation of future legislation which would allow private corps to own schools outright; privatizing the real estate & plant of formerly public facilities & privatizing education entirely - except for funding, of course.

[Hannah Bell]

1. within seconds, the un-reccers strike!

[Trillo]

2. Something can be more recced and unrecced

on any given day, and yet it could be carefully gamed to have a score of zero.

[create.peace]

3. it would be interesting to hear why they unrec this one....nt

[Hannah Bell]

15. kick

[MissMarple]

4. Charter schools are public schools. They are organized independently of the school board....but...

are subject to oversight. Since they are not totally independent of public governance and must adhere to many of the same strictures regarding admission of students and remaining free of religious bias, they are far from being private schools.

Charter schools are not the bogeyman many feared they would be. They are no panacea, either. Their success tends to reflect the population they serve, just like regular public schools.

Christ in a bucket, where do you come up with this stuff?

[goclark]

6. I was a consultant for Public and Charters from 2001 - 5

for two major Universities in the area.

Unless there has been some magical change -- Charters are a way to destroy unions and the Public Schools.

They are in business to make money and destroy the Public School system. They have done that with this sad news from Los Angeles.

Unless something magical has happened within the last few years, that is still the case.

Look for some of my Posts on Charters.

I live in Los Angeles and am well aware of the systematic selling of the Public Schools.

Unless that magic wand is moving -- they do not have to follow the same guidelines....

There does not have to be a Principal on site, thus the over site is not there and that is another way to safe money.
The Charters that I supervised had a " Head Teacher" with little or no experience.

The "Playground" was the Parking Lot for the Church that served as the school.

The office staff had "volunteers- parents" running the office to save money. Thus, the records were exposed to the parent population.

Parents must provide many of the books and materials because the school does not provide them.

The teaching staff does not have to meet the same guidelines as Public Schools. The majority of the staff didn't have a clue because they were all right out of college.

[MissMarple]

9. I understand why they were started...they just aren't working out all that well for the instigators

at least in Colorado. It's beginning to jell out more like the home school movement. They have their pluses and minuses. There is a shift in control with charter schools, but there is still public oversight.

Public schools have problems, the teachers' unions have problems, but the movement to privatize public schools will go no where if the schools and the unions broaden their views.

I became a member of AFT in 1975, that was when teachers began to actually unionize instead of being part of a "professional" organization. The unions have done much for the teaching profession. They raised salaries when women were opting out for other, more lucrative, professions. That helped, but still, we did not attract the best teachers. They became, among others, engineers, accountants, attorneys, and physicians. But the tenure system protects the ones that became teachers by default. I know many fine, quite likable people who are teachers, but, frankly, don't belong in the classroom. And, then they become principals.

I support public schools, I admire teachers, however, we are faced with a world where the old models can't stand. Change will come. I just hope it is constructive.

I have an undergraduate degree in history, a masters in special education, and if I had finished a thesis, a masters in history and government. I have served on numerous committees as a parent, teacher, and community member. I have been a member of a school board. I have no illusions, no romantic notions about schools, public or private. I do believe that public schools are a necessary part of a vital, democratic republic. Our schools must adapt, because right now, from the level of public discourse and the perilous state of our country, they haven't been doing such a great job. If dedicated educators can't turn our schools around, no one can.

We are facing a cultural crisis, our troubled school systems have to learn to counter that. And if the Los Angeles public school board can't control its charters, someone should tell Governor Romer the district is too large and needs to decentralize. And there needs to be cooperative efforts with city, county and state governments. I think he already understands that.

You and I both know the primary problem isn't in the schools, The schools are just a symptom of a community's health. Many are doing quite well. Imagine that.

Charter schools are the least of our problems. Your experience sounds like what has been going on in several states. Texas has some stories to tell. And Lamar Alexander is in it up to his lying eyeballs.

[Hannah Bell]

10. "the movement to privatize public schools will go no where if the schools and the unions broaden

their views"

the "movement" hasn't a thing to do with the width of teachers/unions' views.

it has to do with money, power & social control.

[MissMarple]

19. Sorry, I was unclear.

I was referring to their views on how to counter the charter school offensive on the public schools. Racism, intolerance, poverty, disenfranchisement provide fertile ground for the money and power people, the crazy ideology people. They are exploiting people for gain. And they are doing considerable damage to our county's long term health. I know you understand this. It's scary, like having crazies run amok in your house.

I am not a huge fan of charters, I think, however, some of them may have some useful lessons of what not to do, but also, what might work and make parents happy. I wish our larger districts would allow more guided creativity in serving different communities. Hey, it could happen. And the unions could be more helpful in phasing out weak teachers, in effectively working for safe, professional, productive school environments, and in identifying appropriate school models most especially for our most challenged communities. Cities and counties have necessary roles to play as well.

Being "against" isn't always the best approach. Can't California school districts start their own charter schools? Here, the teachers have started an alternative charter, CIVA. I forget what the acronym stands for, but it seems to do ok.

I realize many districts have given lip service to these ideas over the years, but there has never been the kind of institutional change that really gets things going. That is a real hurdle.

Peace.

[Hannah Bell]

26. we already know what might "work and make parents happy. "

it could be delivered in public schools if that were the goal.

IT'S NOT.

[MissMarple]

28. Parents are easy, most of them want to like their children's schools.

After I wrote that "parents are easy", in an after thought, I considered that might grab your attention. Instead of amending it, I let it stand. Hoo boy. I didn't say it was a goal. Is that all you have?

An unfair person might say, "Why do you hate parents?". I'm not unfair. I wouldn't say you think that.

I am not your opposition. I am saying you may want to broaden your view. Otherwise, you, most possibly, are going to lose. If California goes, we all take a hit.

[Hannah Bell]

31. your post is unintelligible.

you seem to be making some kind of assumptions somehow related to "why do you hate parents".

i have no idea what they are, but they render your post unintelligible, since they have nothing to do with my post.

i said something very simple: we know what is good for kids & how to please parents: smaller classrooms & more individualised programming, for one thing, so kids don't get lost in the shuffle.

if the point was to deliver those things, they could be delivered through public schools.

but the point isn't to deliver those things. it's to destroy public schools. and unions.

this IS the elite agenda, no matter how you insist otherwise.

[MissMarple]

35. I apologize for the lame attempt at a bit of humor.

Maybe if this was in the Lounge it would have gone over a bit better. But, you did say:

"we already know what might "work and make parents happy".
it could be delivered in public schools if that were the goal.

IT'S NOT."

"Why do you hate parents?" was a play on saying "Why do you hate Santa?" if a sales clerk doesn't say "Merry Christmas" when you are purchasing Christmas presents. It's a more of a Lounge comment about the "war on Christmas" crazies. We know the clerk doesn't hate Santa, and I know that you don't hate parents. Honest.

And just to let you know, I fought very hard to keep a goal out of our district's mission and vision statement (I hate those) saying we want to make children happy. I failed. Do I want children to be unhappy? No.

[Luminous Animal]

11. Charter schools are a failure...

and a devise to transfer public funds to private profit or non-profit corporations.

http://www.denverpost.com/familynews/ci_12600754

LOS ANGELES — Charter school students are not performing as well as their peers at traditional public schools, according to a landmark report released Monday that also pointed to a need for more accountability at the increasingly popular alternative campuses.

The study by Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes looked at more than 70 percent of the nation's charter school students, providing one of the first national snapshots of their academic performance.

Margaret Raymond, the report's author, said the study examined individual student data from schools in 16 states, including California, and found large variations in charter school performance.

The study found 17 percent of charter students outperformed traditional schools; 37 percent underperformed traditional schools and 46 percent showed no significant difference.

[MissMarple]

21. I know, charters have been notorious for mediocre performance.

The ones who do the best aren't any better than our better public schools...suprise, suprise... to channel an inner Gomer Pyle.

Saying, however, that all charters are failures and corporate front men is not unlike saying all religious people are intolerant, hypocritical, ideologues. I don't believe railing against them is our best strategy in countering what HannahBell is saying about corporate takeovers of public schools.

Like health care, for profits may have a supportive niche, but also like health care, education doesn't lend itself to being for profit. I suppose we could include churches, as well. None of them are a good service area for corporations. Education and health care delivery can be very expensive, and that is a direct conflict of interest in the for profit arena. The private school "system" wasn't adequate for emerging industrial economies, and the for profits will not serve the 21st century well, either.

In the big picture, I just don't see charters, in and of themselves, being the primary opponent here. I think we have better directions toward which to focus our energies.

[Hannah Bell]

25. what would that "better direction" be?

education, in fact, lends itself to profit very well & the conditions for same are being created.

charters are part of the step-wise assault.

[MissMarple]

30. Profit is lucrative return to the investor.

Profit in health care and education have very long term, very broadly realized results. A private corporation seems to need more immediate profit. In areas such as these, corporations can only skim off the top thus reducing, even endangering, the viability of the longer term goals. In any case profits will always remain quite small in regards to private enterprise.

I'm sure you must understand that. Are you purposefully misapprehending, or is it all teachers, all the time...forever?

[Hannah Bell]

32. you have a limited view of profit. one invests for the future, & the investors have deep pockets.

infinitely deep, in some cases.

regardless, you've not answered my question.

[MissMarple]

34. I don't think these "deep pockets" are investing for the future.

There are people in the charter school industry who are in it for profit, others seriously want to disrupt our public education system, and then there are people who just want better schools for their kids, or what they think are better schools.

You and I both know there isn't enough money to really educate children in a responsible way and make good profits. The public has been getting extremely good value for their money from the public schools, well, most public schools. We know there are districts who are severely stressed to the point of breaking.

I agree that those who seek profit and who actually opened schools have little to no success. Sometimes I think they resemble a bunch of kids playing school. There are, however, charter schools that do a good job, and have done things a bit differently. Teachers have opened charter schools that do well.

The most dangerous group, in my opinion, is the one who wants to incapacitate the public school systems. For some reason you seem to think I don't realize that there are people who actually want to do this. I do. If the charters become benign to the public schools and not an imminent danger those people will find something else with which to attack schools. I don't think they have pinned their hopes just on charters to bring down the public schools.

I'll attempt to answer your question. I would like to see more innovation in the schools. It would be refreshing if the things you mention about kids and parents were actually in place in all of our schools. They are not, not even close. I would like to see teachers who are better trained, have better support, and who have a school day where they have time to work in a collegial way. Too many of our schools still use a "traditional" model that isolates teachers and treats children as a factory product. Finding school models that provide a better fit for our diverse populations is something unions can help with. A viable, yet humane, way to move teachers out who are low performing is lacking. This is an area the unions can and should participate in. Finding a way to bring the schools of education into the real world and train teachers for it is another thing unions can help bring about. These things help teachers to succeed and children to learn. We are not doing any of these on any meaningful level.

Too many of our high school graduates require remedial classes as college freshmen. This is tragic and costly. Aligning curriculum with college requirements would certainly be a thought. One good thing high schools here are beginning to do is pay tuition at community colleges for eligible high school students. Many IB students enter college with credit depending on how well they score on the IB exams. These are good things, but they are not enough.

Holding charters accountable is necessary, but it doesn't sound as if that is happening where you are. They should be held to the same standards as conventional public schools. Colorado districts shut them down every year. We aren't perfect, but we do the best we can. It sounds like California isn't even trying. Pressure might be helpful. Bureaucrats and politicians hate squeaky wheels, especially firmly insistent squeaky wheels.

All of us here are seeing an absence of critical thinking skills of woeful proportions as we discuss this. The blind following, consisting primarily of products of public schools, that the far right has created is frightening. If it continues we will hear the death knell for our country as we know it, as we hoped it could be.

Until teachers, unions, and school districts begin making substantive changes there will be no progress. Unions could have a strong role in effecting this. But, they choose not. Creating vibrant, competent schools is the best defense against the forces that want to dumb down Americans even more than some of us already are. Perhaps more of us should start charter schools. We could develop a calendar based on educational needs and even raise teacher salaries....and even get rid of much of that arcane central office nonsense. So, create a model, create several. People love choices.

[Hannah Bell]

38. You're mistaken. The kind of people & financial organizations putting

huge sums of money into promoting charters are "investing," for various reasons, & once there's a critical mass of charters, the education system is going to change dramatically.

Think of the richest & best-connected private ed corps taking over public school real estate, for starters.

Bill Gates' latest gift to charters alone - $100 million - is bigger than US Ed Dept's entire budget request for grant funds to create "Smaller Learning Communities" in large schools: $88 million.

It makes no difference what you'd "like to see". That's not on the table.

What's on the table is privatization, & you don't seem to be able to admit it.

If the point were to improve schooling for those falling behind, it's quite possible to do it within the public school system - to do all the lovely things you'd like to do.

But it's being done (according to the PR, anyway) by creating a new system open to private investors.

The hope of better results is the bait. You won't like the taste of the hook.

[goclark]

12. I agree many Public Schools are doing well

"But the tenure system protects the ones that became teachers by default. I know many fine, quite likable people who are teachers, but, frankly, don't belong in the classroom. And, then they become principals."

Question: And who will nurture the teachers now?

Believe me as an Administrator, in Los Angeles and in the Mid West for a total of 18 years ~ I have seen the greatest of the great and the bottom of the pile of educators -- that certainly includes Administrators.

I invite anyone to do a search for goclark and Charters at this site.

Unless a magic wand is there that I don't know about,Charters are not the answer to Public Education. Los Angeles has been "testing the waters" for Charters since the early '90s. Even then,they were marginal -- even in the high end of the Valley.

My best friend was the Principal of a Valley Charter ~ she was an exceptional educator and was "on loan" from the LAUSD to the Charter to see how it would work.

I just talked to her and she was not impressed with Charters then and she is not impressed with Charters now.

I can tell you that the lack of a tenure process and the loose guidelines of charters will not improve public education. I know and have supervised many teachers in Charter Schools that "do not belong in classrooms."

Last year, I met with a group of Administrators in LAUSD. One was going to retire the next day. He was saying that the School District
"gave" the building, equipment -- everything to a Charter Company.

That "gift" would be well worth it if some magic would improve the quality of education for that community -- don't think that will happen.

[MissMarple]

17. I don't see charters as the primary enemy of the public school system.

Colorado has had good, bad and indifferent charters. They get shut down all the time. And some do an end around the school district and get a charter from the state. At least one is an on line school chartered through a small, rural district, and it was in trouble, as well. Are they great, no. And the best of them do pretty well, but they are serving the middle, and upper middle classes. There are some good models that public schools might want to look at. Hey, it happens.

In my opinion they are a side show. And it sounds as though the LAUSD has no control over its schools, chartered or otherwise. You are saying they just gave away public property for free. How can that be legal, unless the property has become a liability?

The way public schools were run 20, 30, 60 years ago doesn't fit with today's needs. Where it does is in small schools serving stable communities. Schools work when parents are invested in their kids and have the time and resources to see the kids succeed. Quite frankly, too many communities aren't like that. It's been found that when parents are able to enter the middle class with relative security and stability, their kids' education becomes important. Some kids and parents are more resilient, of course, but most are not.

I'm rooting for the DC lady. I'm forgetting her name, but she knows a thing or two about failing institutions. She has no sympathy for well meaning, but ineffective educators whose feelings would be hurt if they are moved out of the profession. She moves them out. I wish her luck, she faces what looks like and impossible job.

Teachers and principals tend to be good, well intentioned people. Too many of them are in way over their heads, they need help, they need a plan. Pointing at charters, in my opinion, isn't a way to do that. It's counterproductive. Their failures and mediocrities need assertively to be pointed out. I'd be more angry with LAUSD and the state of California. They are two parties more responsible for this debacle. Charters are just opportunists filling a void.

Peace. I think we both want the same thing. Dealing with the LA school "system" must be very disheartening.

[goclark]

20. They are feeling a void and getting paid for doing so

Don't get me wrong ~ I am for quality education.

Let's have this discussion in a year and see where we are -- I'll bookmark this thread.

[MissMarple]

22. I wish you luck in California. I don't see much change coming

if the unions don't grab hold of this. The districts might be pushed, but they won't lead. It's just too much politics.

[Hannah Bell]

24. "grab hold" - of *what*? it's *about* de-unionization & privatization.

your insinuation that it's about the general failure of teachers to teach, or to adapt to modernity is ridiculous.

[MissMarple]

29. Well, too many can't in the challenging communities. That is no insinuation.

It isn't happening in too many places, in too many classrooms. "Grab hold"?...is it all about you, about keeping all teachers in all classrooms with full guarantees regardless of professional ability? There are poor teachers, there are bad teachers, and just regular ones, and there are really fabulous teachers all in untenable situations. I have said nothing about the general failure of teachers to teach. The schools have not adapted. And their current course seems to lead to more of the same. The teachers have beome irrelevant, and sadly, at the same time, a punching bag, the fall guy.

In education, many people are really trying to change this. The unions are not stepping up to the plate in a visible way. Are they as hapless as the districts' bureaucracies? If so, good luck, because that is all you will have, luck. And that is not enough.

[Hannah Bell]

33. 1. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a K-12 teacher. 2. Charters, per the most

comprehensive study done (Stanford) don't serve "challenging communities" any better than traditional public schools. 3. The rest of your post is boilerplate right-wing bs.

[MissMarple]

37. #1 explains a lot. #2 We know they TEND not to. #3 Testy, testy, as well as quite inaccurate.

:) Peace

[Hannah Bell]

39. Gee, when you thought I was a teacher, you implied my interest was

in retaining perks for teachers.

But when I'm not, you imply it's some kind of defect.

Get your straw men straight, would you?

#2: In aggregate, they don't. & in specifics, the biggest % perform worse.

#3. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. You're mouthing winger bs.

[MissMarple]

40. Well, #1 I didn't assume you are a teacher.

Actually you sound more like someone who might work for a teachers' union, or any union, for that matter. #2 In aggregate and tend to are not mutually exclusive. #3 Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean it's ....what you said. It means you can't counter it.

I am quite sure there are quite valid counters, clarifiers, and corrections, but you don't seem to have them. Research is your friend. I am not the enemy. Promise.

[Hannah Bell]

41. can't *counter* it? you're not saying anything. you haven't presented

any argument for anything in particular.

just a collection of glittering generalities, unowned implications, & snide comments: "research is your friend" bullshit.

you're a charter school supporter, but you won't own it outright.

"schools are bad, teachers won't get with the program, sure some charters aren't good but they're progressing, some are good, blah blah."

no, the majority of charter school kids do the same as their ses-matched public school peers. only 17% do better.

the condition of public schools has next to nothing to do with teachers; of all the actors involved in public education, they have the least power over their teaching conditions.

the charter movement is funded by the richest, most powerful people in the US; its aim is not to improve the lot of some ghetto kid - that's just the cynical PR hook. its aim is to destroy the concept of universal public schooling, defund the schools, destroy teachers' unions, & open schooling, curriculum & school real estate to privatization for profit. and to destroy the local power bases developed out of control over local institutions & substitute more centralized hierarchies.

[MissMarple]

42. Well, Al Shanker seemed to think they might have possibilities.

I didn't realize the unions had started so many charters. Moving on to some of the other things that have been mentioned on this thread would be a good thing for public education, as well. There is a lot of support for them from teachers and principals, just not the less than mediocre ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm

http://www.aft.org/topics/charters/

And now you are starting to make stuff up. You haven't actually understood any thing I've been saying if this is how you sum it up.:

"just a collection of glittering generalities, unowned implications, & snide comments: "research is your friend" bullshit.

you're a charter school supporter, but you won't own it outright.

schools are bad, teachers won't get with the program, sure some charters aren't good but they're progressing, some are good, blah blah."

And I thought you were serious.

[goclark]

27. My thoughts exactly ~ I feel sorry for the parents

and the children.

There are now so many choices and parents don't have a clue what to try.

Most choices do not involve the neighborhood schools because they are being turned over by the district to be Charters.

I'm holding goood thoughts for miracles.

[MissMarple]

36. Let me know.

:)

[Hannah Bell]

23. "stable communities" - There are no "stable communities" except

the communities of the wealthy. Not with 10% unemployment, 30 years of flat wages, & the bleeding of middle-income jobs.

"Small schools" cost money.

It's disingenuous to bs about this stuff in the context of what's happening today. The charter school movement isn't about creating "small schools" in "stable communities". If it were, it could be done within the public school system - in fact, many educators have begged for decades to do just that.

The public schools are being turned over to private capital.

[Hannah Bell]

5. Some "oversight": "only 30 of the 163 charter schools in LA filed the required quarterly financial

reports with their local districts."

"Getting an accurate sense for the financial strength of many schools in California is very difficult. With 678 charters in the state, the children and parents in many counties don't have access to basic financial information, such as fiscal reserve and liquidity levels and percent of direct classroom investment."

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/newsroom/news_release.php?id=583


"With one-sixth of the nation’s charters, California needs to lead the nation’s data systems, but it first needs to solve a number of policy issues. Missing data is the primary problem. California offers no incentives for submitting timely reports, has no check on data completeness, and no penalties for failing to file."

http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/focus/charter_schools/publications/other/CSI_09_FINAL.pdf


Charter schools are funded with public money, but they're not "public" schools. For starters, about 12-20% are managed by private, for-profit companies.

They don't have to follow the same rules, as the example above makes quite clear.

1/6th of charters are in California.

In California, as we see, traditional public schools are being cut to the bone, while 50 brand-spanking new schools are being built to house new charters.

Screw that "charter schools are public schools" meme. I'm interested, though, in why proponents push it so determinedly.

[goclark]

7. Exactly what I said in my post without reading yours

first.
It is all smoke and mirrors ~ and a truly sad day for Education.

[Hannah Bell]

8. sadder for the democratic (small-d) experiment.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Sound like they are following President Obama's advice on charter schools

[goclark]

14. I love our President and will be supportive of him on

Charters because I hope that there will be a new twist that I have not witnessed as of this date.

See my post all over DU regarding Charters.

[omega minimo]

16. The public school system is being gutted from within; privatized for personal gain with public funds

public property and public resources.

The worst of it is the complete lack of discussion -- it's a top down, take it or leave it package deal, extorting states to give in and give up their own plans, properties and even state laws (in CA for example), or be excluded from the stimulus funding.

This is not a democratic process and will result in further infiltration of private business (and profits) into every aspect of public life.

[goclark]

18. Why do I agree with you ~

I do.

I just got off the phone with a parent of a 7 year old.

The Mom wants to Home School the child without the consent of the father.

The father wants me to go with him to make an evaluation.

I will keep an open mind.