A Cheap Shot at Charter Schools
The Washington Post
January 15, 2005
By Johnathan Williams
Ten years ago I founded a public charter school. Like most charters, it was not located in an affluent suburb with high-performing public schools, but in a desolate urban neighborhood of South Los Angeles. Today the Accelerated School has joined the ranks of many urban charters that have dramatically raised the academic achievement of kids once thought unreachable.
So my jaw dropped when I read the Dec. 29 op-ed by Amy Stuart Wells, who seemed to characterize charters as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy against public education. It was not her sweepingly negative conclusions that stunned me -- Wells's ideological bias on this issue is widely known. But I was shocked at how out of touch with reality her assertions were.
Attempting to build the case that free-market principles do not belong in public education, Wells remarked that she has seen some excellent charter schools "with well-trained educators and solid curriculums," but that "they tend to be in more middle-class communities, where private resources augment the low level of public funding that charter schools receive."
But most notable charter success stories are located in our urban cores, and they are typically operated by educators and community activists with diverse political leanings. The standout schools, which are making remarkable progress in closing the achievement gap, include North Star Academy in Newark, MATCH School in Boston, Amistad Academy in New Haven, and schools such as KIPP DC/Key Academy and the Arts and Technology Academy in the District -- among many others.
And these are not isolated exceptions. Charter schools are doing a lot better than critics acknowledge. Granted, charter school performance varies. But research by the Rand Corp., the Hoover Institute and the Brookings Institution shows that over time the performance of the charter sector is improving. In California, where charter schools were the subject of a damning 1998 report by Wells, Rand found last year that the performance of charters is now comparable to that of other public schools, achieved with considerably fewer resources.
The District has a lot to teach other chartering jurisdictions about how to set up for success. Its per-pupil funding formula not only provides the same amounts in operating dollars for charter and other public schools, but it also provides charters with a facilities allotment roughly equal to what D.C. Public Schools spends per student on its capital program. So although D.C. charters such as SEED School and the Thurgood Marshall Academy must raise millions for their building programs, the formula provides potential lenders a reliable source of revenue for mortgage payments.
Finally, I take personal exception to any implication that inner-city charter schools exploit students by providing minimal services for public money. No one values quality more highly than those of us who have sweated blood to make our own charter schools exemplary. No educators are more accountable for their own performance than those who operate on a renewable charter. Look in any central city these days -- and the District is a great example -- and you will find a legion of charter leaders who could succeed in any path of life but who work long days and nights because they care passionately about helping disadvantaged kids succeed.
--Johnathan Williams
Los Angeles
The writer is founder of the Accelerated School in Los Angeles, a member of the California State Board of Education, and a board member of the Charter School Leadership Council.
|
2005 Headlines |
A Cheap Shot at Charter...
|
|
