Charting a course for charter schools

Heroic work by teachers and administrators often makes a difference in public education. But good schools take more than that.

|
Ann Hermes/Staff
STUDENTS AT BOSTON COLLEGIATE CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL, IN DORCHESTER, MASS., PREPARE FOR AN ALGEBRA TEST.

The 2010 documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” was – still is – a powerful indictment of American public education. The movie describes a system so dysfunctional, teachers unions so entrenched, and urban neighborhoods so battered that frequent calls for “education reform” ring hollow. Every recent American president has come into office proclaiming improving education Job 1 and often signing landmark legislation. But too many students – other versions of the innocent Anthony, Daisy, Emily, Francisco, and Bianca in the documentary – are still being left behind.

Now, to be fair, most public schools are healthy, productive environments where capable teachers make a profound difference in students’ lives. Year after year, public schools in states such as Massachusetts competently prepare students for college. Still, “Waiting for ‘Superman’ ” makes a convincing case that much of the public-education system, especially in the inner city, is broken and that charter schools – by focusing less on the job security of adults who run the system and more on the kids who are supposed to be served by it – are showing how to fix it.

There are now 6,700 charter schools in the United States. They educate 3 million students (6 percent of the public school population); another 1 million are on waiting lists. If current trends continue, by 2035 charters could be educating as much as 40 percent of American students. Though charter schools vary in quality, in general they are effective at boosting educational achievement, which accounts for their popularity in inner-city neighborhoods. They are big players in cities such as Detroit, Washington, and especially New Orleans, where 91 percent of students now attend charter schools. 

Early charter schools resembled high-tech start-ups, powered by charismatic leaders, succinct mission statements, and a build-fast-fail-fast ethos. Administration was flat. Teachers put in long hours. Student discipline and a culture of learning were paramount. As the movement matures, that is changing. Case in point: Mastery Charter Schools in Philadelphia, where chief executive Scott Gordon has moved from a “no excuses” approach with students to one that takes into account students’ backgrounds and the communities they come from, much as traditional public schools do. (Click here for a Monitor cover story on Mr. Gordon and the schools he manages.)

As charters scale up, they face many of the same issues that public schools do. Few charter teachers are in labor unions now, but unionization is spreading. Management is flat now, but bigger schools will require more bureaucracy. Most charters tuck themselves into small spaces today, but that precludes them offering a full range of activities for students, including athletics and other extracurriculars.

Charter schools began as laboratories. If their growth rate continues, they will become factories. They might, as a result, lose some of the energy of the early days. They might even resemble the public school system they seek to reform. Heroism isn’t a sustainable business model, unless you are Superman, and school kids can wait forever for him. The key for charter schools and for public schools is to remain focused on what really matters. Their names are Anthony, Daisy, Emily, Francisco, and Bianca.

   
You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Charting a course for charter schools
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/From-the-Editors/2016/0327/Charting-a-course-for-charter-schools
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe