Wisconsin State Journal Editorial, via a kind reader’s email:
Madison needs to get past its outdated phobia of charter schools.
Charter schools are not a threat to public schools here or anywhere else in Wisconsin. They are an exciting addition and asset to public schools — a potential source of innovation, higher student achievement and millions in federal grants.
And when charter schools do succeed at something new, their formula for success can be replicated at traditional schools to help all students.
That’s what’s starting to happen in Madison with the success of a dual-language charter elementary school called Nuestro Mundo. Yet too many district officials, board members and the teachers union still view charters with needless suspicion.
Madison’s skeptics should listen to President Barack Obama, who touts charter schools as key to engaging disadvantaged students who don’t respond well to traditional school settings and curriculums. Obama has promised to double federal money for charter school grants.
But Madison school officials are ignoring this new pot of money and getting defensive, as if supporting charter schools might suggest that traditional schools can’t innovate on their own.
Of course traditional schools can innovate. Yet charter schools have an easier time breaking from the mold in more dramatic ways because of their autonomy and high level of parent involvement.
Several School Board members last week spoke dismissively of a parent-driven plan to create a dual-language charter school within a portion of Sennett Middle School. Under the proposal, Nuestro Mundo would feed its bilingual students into a charter at Sennett starting in the fall of 2010.
I continue to believe that our community and schools would be better off with a far more diffused governance structure, particularly in the management of more than $415,699,322 (current 08/09 budget) for a 24,189 student district. Related: the failed Madison Studio Charter School application.
I strongly urge people who have read the article but were not at the meeting to WATCH THE VIDEO before you accept the op ed at face value. It is on-line at: http://oldweb.madison.k12.wi.us/mmsdtv/boe/4476.html
I was astounded by today’s editorial as I was when Ms. Cole accused the board of making negative comments about charter schools and having such a high standard that no charter school will pass muster. Simply put, and as Ms. Silveira noted at the meeting, NO ONE said how they would vote nor did they say that they oppose charter schools. I clearly stated that I support charter schools during the meeting.
As you will see in the video, board members used the March 2 meeting to ask questions about the proposal, the grant funding that is being discussed, and to clarify what was and was not being proposed. We also asked the superintendent questions about the plans that administration has been working on.
We did that because we received the first documents on the Nuestro Mundo proposal on Thursday afternoon; we met the next Monday. This has placed us in a difficult position because we are being asked to fast track a significant decision in record time. The proposal has been under development for c. two years and this is a group that has been through lengthy processes to create and renew the schools charter. It is no surprise or diversion from practice to suggest that it would have been good for the board to have more time to consider the plan.
The ONLY person who said the board was opposed to charter schools was Ms. Cole, who was reading from a prepared statement that did not align with the content of the meeting. I cannot speak to why that happened, but it is unfortunate that this basic misstatement is being taken as fact. WATCH THE VIDEO.
It feels a bit as if we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we accepted the proposal without questions or reservations, we’d be accused of not practicing due diligence. If we attempt to get more information to make sound decisions, we are accused of being opposed to all charter schools. For the life of me, I cannot see how this helps anyone to move forward with or without charters.
Thanks for posting the video Lucy. I have a question:
Has there been discussion in the past about teaching Spanish for native speakers in the middle and high schools (not separate charters, just the existing schools)? It seems like it must be so boring for kids who speak Spanish at home to have to take beginning Spanish with English speaking kids. The alternative for Spanish speakers is to take a different foreign language, if it is offered. It seems like you could help more kids if you offered Spanish grammar and literature rather than making them learn, at the most basic level, a language they can already speak and probably read.
Hi Laura,
I tend to agree with your points. I don’t believe that what you are talking about has been considered but I may be wrong.
At UW-Madison, there are a significant number of students taking world languages (not just Spanish), who grew up speaking but not reading or writing the language (examples include Thai, Hmong, Arabic, Pilipino, and other world languages). The challenge, as you might imagine, is developing the classroom structures when students who are viewed as “heritage” students with students who have may be able to read and write but are not fluent speakers. It can be done, but it takes a structure and teaching style that have been modified.
So, I agree with your thinking and hope that the middle school and high school immersion schools or programs (I don’t have my arms around how high school would work) will provide the space and opportunities to let native speakers work at top capacity in both languages.
Lucy
I am not sure I agree that Spanish immersion is the answer to my question. I am wondering how the needs of bilingual students who are not interested in immersion (or do not win the enrollment lottery) but must have a certain number of language credits to graduate could be better met. If they speak Spanish, they are stuck in classes with kids who are not bilingual. If they speak Hmong, they have to take a different language.
There is no foreign language requirement for graduation, so any classes taken are voluntary. Whether they meet the needs of the students you describe is another matter.
I meant that students need 2 years of foreign language for college application.
http://www.admissions.wisc.edu/freshman/requirements.php
Watched the video. Congrats to district for moving forward with an immersion language program at Leopold. That’s great!! Nuestro Mundo is successful and well liked by the Madison community. Good for them! Hopefully, there will be a way for the District and Nuestro Mundo to work together on their next steps.
I was surprised the board and supt did not have more information earlier on this topic from their staff and/or Nuestro Mundo prior to last week’s meeting for a couple of reasons. Members of Nuestro Mundo traditionally have been very active in reaching out and talking with people in/out of the district, including board members; and, secondly, Supt Nerad, is very willing and open to meeting and talking with the community about a wide variety of issues.
The Board has District Board Policy 10000 on charter schools. Is this policy/process working as intended for the District/prospective charters?
In my work I have interacted with many different districts around the US (and several overseas). While I cannot speak to merit of this particular proposal, there are serious serious structural challenges to charters in general. My wife and I are fortunate enough to be fluent in a second language and have supported children in the pursuit of language skills. I have seen hundreds of charters struggle with the startup challenges of any mid-sized business (most have more than 30 employees and budgets in the several millions from day one). Learning to manage, purchase, train, hire, manage data, etc. are all difficult tasks. Over the past several years there is plenty of evidence that independent charters are joining network to address some of these challenges. Several of the more mature networks look quite a bit like districts. There are hardcore economic reasons why the individual school is not the best or most efficient organizational form. Indeed, market theory suggests that good information is the prime requirement for markets to work. It is very difficult for individual schools to share information with prospective parents in order to inform good market choices. From the parent point of view the cost of acquiring information about individual schools (outside of a network or district) is high. This is more of a barrier for parents with substantial family resources. Unfortunately, there is no organizational form that is a panacea.
My perceptions:
I have a child that took two years of French at Middle school and is in French 4 in Memorial as a sophmore. He can not speak French but can tell you what each word means. The memograph teaching of French really doesn’t work!
For the Charter…….I came to Madison from a community, Anchorage AK, that had many charters. They included, Spanish and Chinese immersion, ABC back to basic concept, open concept and a self paced charter. Parents raffled for them just as we do for Spring Harbor. The district however did not provide transportation to these schools and local students had first priority, so those that elected to raffle were more affluent. My problem was I had one child that was an ABC type kid and one that was an open concept kid. When it came down to choosing a charter raffle I said no thanks….because my local school was so good. However…..my view point on Madison’s Charter is this…..Spring Harbor educates 240 kids…..there are 550 at Jefferson and closer to 600 at Toki. Toki is having so many problems lately I wish the funds that go to SPING HARBOR for 240 kids could go to Toki to help 600 kids. It would add up to more than 1/2 a million dollars. If Madison is only going to have a couple of charters it seems elitist…..if they have multiple choices it does not. We either have to get on board or forget it but the 200 that get in out of 1200 are viewed as better, special…..whereas the other schools are viewed as rejected students. It reminds me of Dr. Seuss’s Sneetches…..stars upon ours…..I am not against charters just against such a small percent and such view choices. Either do it or don’t.
I respectfully disagree that eliminating a good choice (like Spring Harbor) and throwing more money at inadequate schools is a solution. It should be the opposite. If the district and board are looking for a genuine solution to district attrition, they should be taking a close look at why it is that parents are desperate to send their children to Hamilton Middle School (which also has a large enrollment, to the point of being oversubscribed and unavailable for in-district transfers) and the waiting list for Spring Harbor is over 100.
I really liked what Ed Hughes said at the March 9 board meeting concerning charters. He gave two compelling reasons for not supporting the Nuesto Mundo proposal:
1) We want neighborhood schools. I understand that the Isthmus and less dense neighborhoods differ on how close schools are to kids. However, if you live in a less dense neighborhood, and all of your neighbors go to the same school, it is still a neighborhood school. The people without kids, who live in the neighborhood, as well as the kids who attend are invested in both the school and neighborhood. Charter schools bring kids in from all over the city so you don’t have the same support from people who don’t have kids in school and you don’t have the same attachment to the neighborhood from kids who attend a charter far from where they live.
2) All kids should get an appropriate education. It is the district’s responsibility to provide that to all kids, not just those who win the charter school lottery. Ed said something to effect that turning education over to more charters lets the district off the hook for that responsibility but does not meet the needs of all kids.
This is a useful discussion.
From my perspective, the real question is: Can a large organization such as the Madison School District, actually address the wants and needs of our community’s wide range of students and parents?
Or, is it more likely that these needs are served efficiently and effectively by a series of smaller organizations?
Jim,
That is an interesting and valid idea. It seems the elementary and middle school my kids attend have had great ideas and staff that have wanted to do something creative…..and they couldn’t because of the central control of the administration. I understand the standardized requirements but the methods that will work at Falk may be completely different than the one that works at Shorewood. AND some staff are better at certain methods than others. It seems the principals, which should be a highly professional and desired job, has turned into a robotic uncreative job….Too bad they can’t use their education, experience, and be more creative.
I think the answer to Jim’s question lies in the reality of MMSD’s current situation. I’ve heard many arguments made against charters, but all seem to forget that parents who have the means and motivation have choices. If you don’t choose to offer interesting educational alternatives within the public school district, you will see people look elsewhere for options. Perhaps they find an outlet through open enrollment, send their child to a private school or finally decide to pack up and move to a district that offers what they’re seeking. The point is if you don’t find a way to be innovative and offer unique alternatives that address the different learning styles of children, you’ll lose some families to other schools/districts. And obviously, the ones most likely to leave are those who have the resources to do so. By not innovating, you create a vicious cycle.
I honestly hope that MMSD sees the light and that more charters are in its future. The discussion should be: how do we give more children access to a wonderful educational opportunity like that offered by Nuestro Mundo? What other unique educational environments could MMSD offer that would energize and engage students and parents? We shouldn’t attempt to destroy or prevent promising alternatives because we can’t find a way to offer them to more children.
How clever of the school board. They approved going ahead with the development of their own plan for dual immersion in middle school that is not well defined, but they’re sure it will be.
I have never felt comfortable with the charter/non-charter debate and have never taken a position for or against. It’s not relevant.
The discussion really is never about some corporate governance issue, but a stand-in for parents’ and the public’s concern that the education delivered by MMSD is inadequate, and there is no ability of the public/taxpayers to improve the District’s performance, or even know where and for whom the District is failing or succeeding.
The result is many grab at some alternative or label of charter school, private school, other district, online, home school. There is no question that a certain very limited number of students, on either tail of the distribution, would likely be better served if they had access to resources more closely aligned to their special needs, skills, interests.
However, for the most part, the discussions simply are diversions from the issue. What is required and what must be done to ensure a quality education for our students (and ourselves)?
I know for certain the answer to these two question is not “charter schools” or “home schooling” or “virtual schools” or “Singapore math” or “student-centered learning” or new report cards or teacher merit pay, or innovation, or creativity, or more Ph.D.s or M.A.s in education, or more computers, or ….
I do know that charter schools, if using the same techniques and ideas that do not work in the public schools for your kids, will not work in the charter schools. I do know that just the phenomenon of parents making the effort of moving their kids to “better” schools will have a positive initial effect on their kids performance, especially if the student also wants to attend the new school — regardless of the school’s characteristic — something like the early success on a new diet, and some New Year’s resolutions.
I do know that the same or similar issues have been raised, argued and debated for decades with minimal data and maximal heat, coming to no resolution; for the dialog is political and emotional and filled with promises not kept, and promises delayed, and multiple five-year plans, and new “theories” based on the need to defend masters degree papers, or PhD theses, or just a grant, or tenure, or write a book and get speakers’ fees, and exercise power, however fleeting.
I, for one, do not want to see any educational innovation or creativity, nor (false) promises of schools under some new corporate structure. For me, education will have succeeded only when innovation is neither demanded nor required.
I do not expect the skilled carpenter, plumber, mechanic, doctor, or lawyer to be innovative. The vagaries of my house, plumbing, cars, illness, or estate, which are without question unique, simply will not present the need for innovation, but routine procedures that will produce a solution though it be unique to me.
In the skilled professions, mentioned above, practitioners have the diagnostic skills, tools, resources and know when and how to use them efficiently with proven and pragmatic results. I have not seen the same in the education field — thus the diversions — by discussions of charter schools, merit pay, mobility, ethnicity, gaps.
Part of what I find interesting in this conversation is the continuation of the misinformation about the notification of the plans for a NMI secondary school. There was a meeting with district management including the superintendent that outlined the plans and reasoning behind each idea presented. That meeting was on December 5, 2008. Additionally, several BOE members were approached privately to review the plans that were being developed for 2 plus years by a parent and community member committee.
It is also interesting that the BOE voted to accept an administration proposal that has not been developed rather than even consider reviewing the NMI proposal.
Additionally, the BOE voted to accept moving toward DLI in other schools. Had they really been PRO CHARTER (as they are all so quick to claim they are) maybe it would be have been fiscally responsible to partner with NMI- a known and proven entity to MMSD- to bring in the additional funding that would have come with an approved charter. That out of district money could have been used for curriculum development, professional development, technology and other things.
I was at those meetings on March 2 and March 9 and others. I have spoken privately with almost every one of the BOE members. What they say at public meetings is that they are not anti- charter. However, Ms. Cole called it. Every person I have spoken with, except Ms Cole, say ‘charter’ as if it is a dirty word and have said they will not support charters in this district.
mixed messages. missed opportunities. time to move beyond ideology and look at what is good for all the kids. dispel rumors, instead of repeating them. build coalitions instead of barriers. look for reasons WHY TO instead of WHY NOT TO….
take a chance