The changing charter school landscape
The news that teachers in the KIPP AMP Charter School in Brooklyn have decided to unionize shook the charter school world. In Ohio, this movement toward reconciliation between charter schools and teachers unions does not come as a complete surprise. There is movement here away from the era of ruthless charter/district competition toward more partnerships and collaboration between the sectors.
The most innovative of these efforts in the Buckeye State are voluntary and include efforts like the Dayton Early College Academy in Fordham’s hometown. DECA is a free-standing charter school that has close ties to both the Dayton Public Schools (its authorizer) and to the University of Dayton (which provides much of the school’s organizational and academic leadership). In Cleveland, the district and a handful of charters have, according to Catalyst Ohio, been “meeting to discuss potential partnerships and ways to take advantage of each others’ expertise.” Similar conversations are taking place in Ohio’s other big urban districts.
The drivers for these conversations are: 1) an appreciation by school districts that charter schools are here to stay and that they should figure out how to work with the good ones; 2) increasingly tight fiscal budgets that require more effective use of limited resources through partnerships; and 3) change in political leadership–from Republicans to Democrats–that have made charter schools not connected to districts increasingly marginalized in conversations at the Statehouse about things like money, facilities, and additional freedom for future innovations.
This movement away from zero-sum competition toward collaboration is positive, if it is done in a fashion that respects the essential operational freedoms that make charter schools successful, which include liberating schools in such areas as personnel, budget, and curriculum. Additionally, these partnerships need to emerge through a voluntary process based on mutual respect, as opposed to being foisted upon the charter school community by the state. State law should encourage partnerships, but not force them.
Related posts:
- Romeo and Juliet have nothing on Ohio charter schools
- Did You Know? Findings from Fordham’s latest charter school accountability report
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Subscribe
to Flypaper via RSS
January 14th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I have some serious doubts about the value of tightening the relations between charters and districts.
The nature of charters, due to their effective operation without a central administration, is a threat to school districts. By merely operating successfully charters call into question the need, or even value, of the school district and it’s inevitable central administration.
Yes, you’ll find the occasional school district which will partner with a charter for mutual benefit but as the inevitably larger partner the district is strongly motivated to use any relationship to advantage the district at the expense of the charter.
If education’s the primary interest then the independence of charters ought to be protected because it’s pretty clear now, after quite a few decades, that worthwhile innovation’s not to be found in school districts.
January 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I would view any public and private partnership with great suspicion. I suspect that those public schools seeking the cooperation with their local charter schools are following the age-old adversary’s creed. “Keep your friend close, and your enemies closer.”
Charter schools were begun as a direct result of the failings of the public education system. Trying to bring the two together will only contaminate the good and not purify the bad. One bad apple will ruin a barrel of good ones, but one good apple cannot cleanse a barrel of bad ones.
The best course of action is to keep them separate and let the natural laws of competition and supply and demand improve the bad in trying to keep-up with the good. Survival is a powerful motivator.