View the Bill in its most current form here.
View the 3 part series inspired by this blog post on CullmanToday.com
On March 19, 2015, Gov. Robert Bentley signed SB45, creating the "Alabama School Choice and Student Opportunity Act". This sets out the rules defining a charter school, how they should be created and by whom, who they report to, and how they should behave. This Act also allows for the creation of the Alabama Public Charter School Commission (APCSC), a body made up of individuals recommended by the Governor, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the State Superintendent of Education, and, occasionally, a member of a local school board. The Commission will oversee local school boards that decide to become "authorizers" of the new charter schools wishing to operate in their district and traditional schools that wish to convert to charter, as well as serving as authorizer for the would-be charters without a local one.
This all sounds pretty simple. You have a big governing body that will oversee multiple smaller bodies that will oversee a few little ones. Each one is accountable to the ones above it and has a certain set of rules to follow. So what is all the fuss about? To answer that, you have to start at the very beginning: what, exactly, is a charter school?
A charter school is a public school, almost exactly like the one you most likely send your own children to every day. The main difference is that a charter school isn't bound by local or state educational statutes, thus providing it freedom to focus on what it feels is important. This means no Common-Core aligned curriculum, no emphasizing AR points over reading for pleasure, no math tests that measure only the ability to regurgitate the latest formula without utilizing the creative thinking that is vital to understanding how those formulas work in the first place. What it is bound by is a contract - a charter - issued by a local school board or the APCSC that states exactly what concepts the school does emphasize and how it plans to teach them.
View the 3 part series inspired by this blog post on CullmanToday.com
On March 19, 2015, Gov. Robert Bentley signed SB45, creating the "Alabama School Choice and Student Opportunity Act". This sets out the rules defining a charter school, how they should be created and by whom, who they report to, and how they should behave. This Act also allows for the creation of the Alabama Public Charter School Commission (APCSC), a body made up of individuals recommended by the Governor, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the State Superintendent of Education, and, occasionally, a member of a local school board. The Commission will oversee local school boards that decide to become "authorizers" of the new charter schools wishing to operate in their district and traditional schools that wish to convert to charter, as well as serving as authorizer for the would-be charters without a local one.
This all sounds pretty simple. You have a big governing body that will oversee multiple smaller bodies that will oversee a few little ones. Each one is accountable to the ones above it and has a certain set of rules to follow. So what is all the fuss about? To answer that, you have to start at the very beginning: what, exactly, is a charter school?
A charter school is a public school, almost exactly like the one you most likely send your own children to every day. The main difference is that a charter school isn't bound by local or state educational statutes, thus providing it freedom to focus on what it feels is important. This means no Common-Core aligned curriculum, no emphasizing AR points over reading for pleasure, no math tests that measure only the ability to regurgitate the latest formula without utilizing the creative thinking that is vital to understanding how those formulas work in the first place. What it is bound by is a contract - a charter - issued by a local school board or the APCSC that states exactly what concepts the school does emphasize and how it plans to teach them.
By definition, a charter school can absolutely decide what approach it wants to take to education. As long as the school provides "statewide end-of-year annual standardized assessment as applicable to other public schools in the state", the school can focus primarily on science, technology, art, special education, or any other subject, in any manner that it wishes to. Of course, it is in the school's best interests to provide curriculum that enables students to fulfill the Alabama High School Graduation Requirements, or it won't be in business for long. If it continuously performs at an "F" level according to the Alabama Accountability Act (in the lowest 6% on standardized tests), its charter will not be renewed for the next school year. Additionally, the charter can also be revoked at any time if the school violates any of the terms of its contract. |
What a charter school absolutely cannot do is deny admission to any student on the grounds of academic ability, income level, need for special education assistance, religion, gender, ethnicity, athletic ability, or language proficiency. Entire charter schools based on alternative discipline, special education emphasis, or at-risk students may be formed and will be given special consideration by the authorizing committee. Charter schools based on religion cannot be formed and charters organized on a special interest, such as science, math, art, or music, cannot deny enrollment if a student is not proficient in that area. Location is only a factor when the number of enrollees exceed the space available. Students that live within the district the charter school operates in are accepted first, then students who live without. If more students want in than there is space, priority is given to in-district students, then a random lottery is held for the out-of-district ones, if space is still available. Essentially, charter schools are the same as every other public school, just with a little bit more freedom of instruction.
For the most part, this is pretty straightforward stuff that don't seem to have much of a downside. The drawbacks appear when discussing money (of course) and teacher qualifications. In education, money follows the student. As explained by the Alabama Coalition for Public Charter Schools, “Schools are funded based on the number of students they have. If a student chooses to leave a [public] traditional ...school to attend a public charter school, the money would follow the student to the public charter school." If a student decides that the local public school system is no longer serving her needs best, this Act enables her to go somewhere that does, without unduly impacting her family finances. This means that schools will now have to compete for money that they no longer have a monopoly on.
Reduced funding can be especially harmful in areas where populations are predominately low-income, "urban", or otherwise "at-risk". Those schools may be failing to meet standards not because the teachers or administration themselves are bad, but because there is a high number of students who have discipline problems, uninvolved parents, exceptional home responsibilities, learning disorders, or a myriad of other problems that keep them from performing optimally. If a charter decides to open in one of these usually rural districts with high minority populations, many frustrated parents of students not at-risk may choose to evacuate the traditional school. Parents of at-risk students may not care, be involved, or be informed enough to bother, thus creating a "good" school and a "bad" school, affecting both budgets and test results.
In the event that school un-enrollment is so great that the loss of revenue exceeds the ensuing reduction in educating costs, state and federal funding could be cut to a level that makes normal operation of the school unsustainable. Teaching positions would be eliminated or filled by candidates who are not necessarily equipped or experienced enough to handle disadvantaged youth. Fewer teachers means fewer people to share the responsibilities of a troubled population and can lead to burnout – already a high occurrence in the newly graduated educators most likely to accept low-paying jobs at turbulent schools.
For the most part, this is pretty straightforward stuff that don't seem to have much of a downside. The drawbacks appear when discussing money (of course) and teacher qualifications. In education, money follows the student. As explained by the Alabama Coalition for Public Charter Schools, “Schools are funded based on the number of students they have. If a student chooses to leave a [public] traditional ...school to attend a public charter school, the money would follow the student to the public charter school." If a student decides that the local public school system is no longer serving her needs best, this Act enables her to go somewhere that does, without unduly impacting her family finances. This means that schools will now have to compete for money that they no longer have a monopoly on.
Reduced funding can be especially harmful in areas where populations are predominately low-income, "urban", or otherwise "at-risk". Those schools may be failing to meet standards not because the teachers or administration themselves are bad, but because there is a high number of students who have discipline problems, uninvolved parents, exceptional home responsibilities, learning disorders, or a myriad of other problems that keep them from performing optimally. If a charter decides to open in one of these usually rural districts with high minority populations, many frustrated parents of students not at-risk may choose to evacuate the traditional school. Parents of at-risk students may not care, be involved, or be informed enough to bother, thus creating a "good" school and a "bad" school, affecting both budgets and test results.
In the event that school un-enrollment is so great that the loss of revenue exceeds the ensuing reduction in educating costs, state and federal funding could be cut to a level that makes normal operation of the school unsustainable. Teaching positions would be eliminated or filled by candidates who are not necessarily equipped or experienced enough to handle disadvantaged youth. Fewer teachers means fewer people to share the responsibilities of a troubled population and can lead to burnout – already a high occurrence in the newly graduated educators most likely to accept low-paying jobs at turbulent schools.
Alternatively, one must consider that with the loss of a student comes the loss of his cost. Georgia Institute of Technology’s Christine P. Ries published a paper showing that only the smallest schools would actually lose more funding than their costs would decrease and it is precisely those districts in which charter schools are most unlikely to form. Remember: “if the reduction in school costs that comes with fractionally lower enrollment is GREATER than the … loss of per-child state and federal funding, the school and district is left with increased funds to spend on the children who remain.” THIS IS A GOOD THING for the children who remain. |
Now, consider the other issue: test scores and legislation requirements. Without the high grades of less troubled students to offset the low grades of at-risk youth, the school’s testing averages will bottom out, causing schools to fail requirements set in place by No Child Left Behind. NCLB states that a school must be continuously improving in proficiency and making “Adequate Yearly Progress”, failing no more than two consecutive years. A quick glance at almost any school- or state-run education website will show that, while our system may be passionate about education, it has no idea how to be clear, concise, and direct while effectively providing the information needed to users - a skill that must become developed in order to properly teach and "adequately progress" our children. As an example, go check out the Alabama State Dept. of Education website and try to find out the exact qualifications a teacher in this state must have. (I'll have a therapist waiting for you when you get back.) Easily changeable, yet mismanaged, resources like this are a reflection of our system's inability to properly manage what they already have. This does not inspire confidence in the utilization of current funds, much less their ability to operate on a reduced budget.
However, there is hope. U.S. spending on education is at an all-time high, but according to a study done by Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming of the Heritage Foundation,
However, there is hope. U.S. spending on education is at an all-time high, but according to a study done by Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming of the Heritage Foundation,
“increasing federal funding on education has not been followed by similar gains in student achievement.”
They found that the allocation of resources mattered more than the amount of resources and recommend that “[i]nstead of simply increasing funding for public Education, federal and state policymakers should implement Education reforms designed to improve resource allocation and boost student performance.”
Well, if charter schools aren't taking money they shouldn't be, they must be stocking classrooms with underqualified dropouts, right? Not necessarily. The ASCSO states that, "teachers in public charter schools shall be exempt from state teacher certification requirements", but "public charter schools shall comply with applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations regarding the qualification of teachers and other instructional staff." Let's look at those qualifications and see just how badly the U.S. government is shortchanging us.
Well, if charter schools aren't taking money they shouldn't be, they must be stocking classrooms with underqualified dropouts, right? Not necessarily. The ASCSO states that, "teachers in public charter schools shall be exempt from state teacher certification requirements", but "public charter schools shall comply with applicable federal laws, rules, and regulations regarding the qualification of teachers and other instructional staff." Let's look at those qualifications and see just how badly the U.S. government is shortchanging us.
Federal Government Requirement - "Highly Qualified" 1) a Bachelor's degree 2) prove that teachers know each subject they teach through one of the following:
| Alabama State Teacher Requirements - "Highly Qualified" Must have:
1) a Bachelor's degree in content field or Education 2)Passing score on Alabama Educator Certification Testing Program (AECTP): Basic Skills Assessments 3) Passing score on Praxis II in desired subject areas |
Soooooo..... What's the difference? At minimum, both governments require a Bachelor's degree in something, as well as additional testing. Alabama does require a content-specific Praxis II, which isn't precisely mentioned in federal guidelines, but when one of the federal requirements is state licensure (which includes the Praxis II) it becomes the kind of circular reference that would trigger error messages all over your Excel spreadsheet. From what I can tell, federal teaching requirements merely open up pathways to becoming a teacher (in charter schools, at least) to people who haven't taken the traditional high-school-student to college-student to classroom-teacher route. In my personal opinion, that is not a bad thing. Our teachers need more life experience. How can a newly minted 22-year old effectively relate at-times boring educational concepts to students with a multitude of varying life experiences when all they've ever known themselves are the sheltered walls of pedagogy instruction and content analysis?
Now, Alabama is admittedly late to the game. Since the first charter school law was enacted in Minnesota in 1991, a total of 42 states (plus the District of Columbia) have followed suit, with wildly varying legislation and successes. Everyone has heard the horror stories: the big bad charter moves in, steals students, then shuts down the local education scene and proceeds to fail themselves. But people need to remember: Charter schools are open-enrollment, publicly funded, attend-by-choice schools. Everything you hate about your local school has a chance to be fixed at a charter. The Common Core curriculum, the AR competitions - if that isn't a value pursued by the school's charter, it will not be a value that is forced upon the student. If your values do not align with the charter school's, your child does not have to attend.
How successful charters will be at passing on those values depends a lot on the framework each individual state sets in place to support the charter and hold it accountable. Apparently, Alabama is in luck. According to AlabamaSchoolConnection.org,
Now, Alabama is admittedly late to the game. Since the first charter school law was enacted in Minnesota in 1991, a total of 42 states (plus the District of Columbia) have followed suit, with wildly varying legislation and successes. Everyone has heard the horror stories: the big bad charter moves in, steals students, then shuts down the local education scene and proceeds to fail themselves. But people need to remember: Charter schools are open-enrollment, publicly funded, attend-by-choice schools. Everything you hate about your local school has a chance to be fixed at a charter. The Common Core curriculum, the AR competitions - if that isn't a value pursued by the school's charter, it will not be a value that is forced upon the student. If your values do not align with the charter school's, your child does not have to attend.
How successful charters will be at passing on those values depends a lot on the framework each individual state sets in place to support the charter and hold it accountable. Apparently, Alabama is in luck. According to AlabamaSchoolConnection.org,
Alabama's SB45 is the
"highest-scoring public charter school law in the nation..."
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) calculates this score by issuing points on a 5-point scale in 20 different areas. These scores range from 0 to 4 and are awarded by comparing the NAPCS's model-law-measuring-rubric to each state's laws governing their charter schools. The rubric covers everything from funding for our newly-created Alabama Public Charter School Commission, to access to extracurricular activities, to the level of accountability for the schools themselves. Keep in mind that although we've done a fantastic job of drafting the law, it is not the only predictor of success. Even the introduction to the model law points out that "a strong charter law is a necessary but insufficient factor in driving positive results for public charter schools." Alabama must also ensure that we have "supportive laws and regulations (both what is on the books and how it is implemented), ...quality authorizers, ...effective charter support organizations, such as state charter associations and resource centers, ...outstanding school leaders and teachers, [and] ...engaged parents and community members." Holy cow. If we had outstanding leaders and teachers, as well as engaged parents and community members, we wouldn't have the need for charter schools in the first place.
What do you think? Will charter schools save Alabama's notoriously poor education system, or will we, too, discover that Superman does not exist?
What do you think? Will charter schools save Alabama's notoriously poor education system, or will we, too, discover that Superman does not exist?