Many major newspapers are carrying the story this week of the decision by the Ravenswood City School District (3-2 vote) to deny renewal of the Stanford New School charter. According to a 2004 Center for Education Reform release, approximately 311 charters had closed across the US – that number is surely more than doubled now that we are six years further down our charter journey.So, why are major newspapers finding the non-renewal of the Stanford New School newsworthy?
This charter school was created and is overseen by Stanford University’s School of Education – in particular it was founded by Linda Darling-Hammond, a leader in education and school reform and President Obama’s advisor on education during his transition. The school spends on average $3,000 more per student than the average state allotment, it has excellent teachers, resources, access to the best in educational advisors .. and yet it is in Program Improvement ?? Say it isn’t so!!! How could this be?
Here are my thoughts – and I welcome yours as well – starting, managing and sustaining charter schools is MESSY work with a multitude of variables. Teacher turn over is high in startup charters – the work is intensive and demanding. Stanford New School serves a predominately Latino population with a high level of English Language Learners; the poverty level is very high. The schools enrollment has grown significantly which indicates many who are testing are not intact cohorts educated for all 5 years of their charter. In their K-12 charter there are pockets of excellence (the high school has great outcomes) but it is not enough to sway the state data in their favor. Quality program development to handle the complexity of these statistics takes TIME as well as expertise… and when you are Stanford University and Linda Darling-Hammond – well .... sometimes I think expectations may be higher than reality allows.
Posts
As you know, being involved with a charter school is a movement not just a regular job. Its unfortunate about the school, but charter schools that are successful start small and build each year. They have to be careful and thoughtful and "on it" in terms of the do's and donts. The sky is the limit, but you also have to have committed people around you that are going to stick it out because its their school too.
ReplyDeleteGood luck on the blog.
Anjam
Charter school closing! No film at 11:00
ReplyDeleteCharter Schools come and go and to borrow a phrase “the world will little note nor long remember” the event.
Other than among rapidly aging followers of the Lone Ranger, Gen X-Vampire devotees there are no silver bullets. Chartered Waters (CW) observation that “expectations may be higher than reality allows” is absolutely valid.
CW asserts that “Starting, managing and sustaining charter schools are Messy work”. If your charter had the resources of (1) Stanford, (2) L. D. Hammonds, et al (3) an additional 3K PER STUDENT, charter schools would be messy work. Absent those 3 additional components “Messy” may fall a bit short of covering the issue.
Charter schools have been very effectively constrained in California, i.e. no money for facilities, no funds for transportation, etc. When you consider the array of factors which limit them: less money, fewer resources, often intense local politics and inter-district rivalries, the fact that a high percentage of site based charters fail is no news at all. The fact that some survive is more note worthy. . It may be that the failure or success of any or all charter schools is less important than the fact that they exist. By providing options in communities where there have been none, raising awareness “competition” in traditional school leadership, in and of themselves, lend value to the community.
The revocation of Stanford New School’s charter does raise important questions. If a school with these extraordinary resource does not garner success: Why? And what would?