Essay: Charter Schools in 10 Million Words or Less

There is a charter school opening in my area, and a whole lot of people have been asking me what I think about them. Since decision-time for school next year is coming right up, I thought I'd take a minute and write out my thoughts. This could be a very long post . . .

The answer is . . . they can be fantastic or terrible. Or somewhere in between. Just like regular schools. I have read about some charter schools in various journals that sound wonderful. I have witnessed and heard of some charter schools that I would never send my child to. Keep in mind when I make my comments that I am addressing the way the charter school system works in Utah, and I don't know a lot about how it's done elsewhere.

I like the notion of having a choice to send your child elsewhere if your neighborhood school is not meeting your needs. However, I would be inclined to try and get the neighborhood school to meet my needs before shopping around. Neighborhood public schools play a great role in communities. It is the place where people of all backgrounds come together and interact with each other. Everyone that sends their child to a neighborhood school has concern for the same geographic area, thus providing a way for people to network with others who have interest in improving the quality of life in their area. Everyone at the school wants to help those that struggle among them, either academically or in some other way. The neighborhood school has been compared to the modern day "town square." Much has been written about this, but I think that's enough for this conversation.

I do not like the notion of parents, without knowledge and background in education, being basically in charge of things. Parents are the most important aspect of a child's education, absolutely. Any program, class, or curriculum that is to succeed must closely involve parents. However, just being a concerned parent, even a highly-educated, highly-concerned parent, does not qualify someone to make decisions about things for which they have not been educated if these decisions affect large groups of children. Yes, there are many things about education that can be intuitive, and it is not difficult to teach the basics to children who are naturally good at learning. But, in order to help all children reach their full potentials, it takes a whole lot more than just knowing what the kids should know. It requires a knowledge of child development, especially cognitive development, and the process of how this development manifests in each subject area. You must then match this with various learning styles of the children you teach and instructional techniques that have been shown to elicit growth and progress toward your learning goals. This is A LOT to know. People research it their whole lives, so surely those that make educational decisions for our children should at least know the basics. Do you know about phonological and phonemic awareness, conservation, disequilibrium, comprehensive input, subitizing, and the instructional implications for each? Probably not much unless you are a teacher. (I know lingo changes, just realize I'm trying to make a point.)

It can be argued that not everyone who is currently in charge of our schools knows all that they should, and are making poor decisions. True, but we should be in support of moving in a direction where educators do know what they should, not in the direction of putting people in charge that have no background at all. Budgetary restrictions that are not allowing progress in quality of public education is a whole different topic. I'll just say that yes, regular public schools are not always moving in the direction we'd all like, so that's why sometimes a charter school is a good option. However, a fantastic charter school will not have a board of people with no educational background in charge. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the fantastic charter schools to know how they got that fantastic, but I wouldn't think it was just luck. For some reason most of the charter school/home school crowd around here has come to most of the same conclusions about what curricula to choose. I've heard people say, "My sister teaches in a totally exclusive private school in California, and she says that curriculum is awesome." Does anyone else realize why choosing a curriculum based on comments like this falls short?

One thing that bothers me about any organization is when they promise more than is possible to deliver. I've found that often charter schools do this. Somehow they will pay teachers enough to attract the best, have small class sizes, have the best supplies and curricula . . . all with public funds. Yes, there is a lot of good a school can do by thinking outside the box, but the money is what the money is - not that much for schools, especially in the state of Utah. The regular public schools aren't sinking millions into fancy assemblies or something silly (usually), the "extra" simply does not exist. Maybe the schools themselves aren't exactly promising all of this, it's just the parents talking about it who hope they've found a solution to the problems they see. I don't know.

A challenge faced by charter schools around here is finding teachers. It is hard for a new charter school to attract experienced teachers because they already have tenure, a place on the pay scale, a social network, and leadership positions in the schools and districts where they teach. If a district opens a new school they simply transfer some of the experienced teachers, but charter schools do not have this luxury as they are not members of any district. New teachers are enthusiastic and up-to-date on the latest in education, but need experienced mentors to make it through the first little while. Another problem in the county where I went to college is that the buzz surrounding what it's like to teach at charter schools is not very positive. Most graduates wouldn't work at one as their first choice. Now, I'm not saying that there are not good or even excellent teachers at these schools. I'm just saying there are a few more challenges for charter schools when hiring.

A few words on the aforementioned curricula that seems to always get chosen around here. (They have been chosen for my new local charter as well.) Each one of these could prompt an essay of its own to really explain myself, but I'll just touch on them here.

The Core Knowledge Sequence. I've spent a lot of time on their website, but have not witnessed first-hand a school that uses it. I appreciate the ideas behind it, and see some good it in it. However, overall it seems unnecessary for a state with well-researched state standards. At least in K-3, Utah has that. Why spend precious money on this other thing? In addition, the people behind the sequence clearly do not have a grasp on early childhood development, otherwise they would not have said so many of the things that are posted on their website.

The Spaulding Method. This is not popular enough in literacy circles that I have heard it discussed by name in classes or conferences to this point. I have been on their website as well, and think there is a lot of good in their ideas. However, what I see presented as the curriculum on the website should only be a part of a whole literacy experience for children. My thoughts for now is that it could be a really great thing if used right, but could be stifling if used exclusively.

Saxon Math. This is the one I feel well-qualified to comment on. I spent two years on the math committee for my school district, and participated in a curriculum adoption decision that lasted the whole two years. It involved a ton of research and more blood, sweat, and tears than I have time to write in this post. Saxon Math was not even in our top 5. In fact, we found it to be the antithesis of the way mathematics instruction should be moving. It has a fantastic spiral composition, and is great for teaching kids arithmetic. But that's it. The critical thinking, problem solving, and strong sense of number that students need is not supported by Saxon. The next generation of students that will raise the level of science and engineering in America will not materialize this way. I could write a very long essay on mathematics education, but will stop. Please don't stop being my friend if you like Saxon, I know this is a divisive issue.

Anyway, if you are still with me you are a good person. Or especially interested in charter schools. As for my neighborhood school, I don't know how things are there so I can't compare them. The charter school that is opening near me has extremely excellent goals, so it will be interesting to see how they do. If I lived near an excellent charter school and my neighborhood school was stinky, of course I would pick the charter. If all things were pretty much equal I'd choose the neighborhood school for reasons stated long ago. If I lived near a one-room school house and that's it, I would send my kids to it with their book and slates happily in hand. And that's my conclusion.