<p>Okay, so some disclosure. I have been extremely involved in the Los Angeles Unified School District for over 20 years as a parent including in serving on district task forces, school-based governance councils, parent associations, etc. I am intimately acquainted with the good, the bad and the ugly in LAUSD. After graduating college, my daughter joined Teach for America, taught one year for LAUSD, was laid off along with hundreds of teachers after her first year and then went to work teaching for one of the top-performing charters in L.A. She also worked for the California Charter School Association while in college. So I feel pretty well-acquainted with the charter school movement and the education reform movement.</p>
<p>There are some very successful charter schools in L.A. They are producing results in neighborhoods where the traditional schools have a high drop-out rate, etc. It’s not because the kids are so much better off. My daughter teaches middle school. She’s had pregnant kids, kids who are getting involved in the worst gangs in the country, etc. Most of her kids don’t have fathers living at home. They are in one of the poorest areas in Los Angeles. The concept that the kids in charters (at least here) have so much more going for them because they somehow got there is exaggerated. This particular charter school does not kick kids out easily at all because they know the student will fall through the cracks afterward. Here is what I think makes the difference:</p>
<p>Yes, the teachers matter. They are carefully selected. I have sat on interview committees at my son’s high school. We look at resumes, interview and maybe check references and then we hire and hope for the best, knowing we can’t get rid of the person if we made a mistake. At this charter, people interview, they teach a class there while being observed, they submit a video of a lesson plan that was done in front of real kids. They interview a second time (I believe.) It’s not easy to get hired and you are not automatically there the next year. You have to get results or you will be replaced. The hours are long, the school year is longer, the culture of achievement and hard work that is promoted to the students is also one that exists among the faculty. Yes, they work too hard and I think that’s an issue for successful charter schools, but look at what they are trying to do. My daughter is taking kids for whom English is a second language, who are way behind in literacy, who live in homes without books, without enough resources, and trying to put them on the same level as kids who have more. That doesn’t come without hard work. </p>
<p>Secondly, successful charter schools often have a successful partnership with the private sector. That fosters accountability, allows them to often have special programs or facilities, enables them to do more. It would be nice if private businesses wanted to partner with a traditional Los Angeles public high school, but it would be foolish. The money would get lost in the vast accounts and bureaucracy of LAUSD and there is not enough control. Charters allow the private sector to get involved and to know where their money is going. It’s a win/win. </p>
<p>Thirdly, the school is autonomous and can do what it deems is best for its particular population of students and teachers. This is huge. LAUSD serves many hundreds of thousands of students and the geographical area it spans is so vast that it takes about an hour to drive from one end to the other with absolutely no traffic. Everything is one-size fits all. As a result, schools often feel that they are working with one hand tied behind their back. They want to do something and the district prevents it. They can’t make their own decisions on matters related to grading, calendars, length of school days, discipline policies, etc. even if they have a great idea about what might work. It’s paralyzing and the reason that some schools have petitioned to go charter and chosen to leave the district. In addition, so much money never gets to the students because it takes so much money to run a centralized bureaucracy. It’s demoralizing. While some charter schools may waste money, and all are obviously not good, with good management, the money can go farther and teachers can be paid a competitive salary. </p>
<p>It might be different, and I imagine it is, in a small district like the one I grew up in that had one high school and four K-8 schools. Of course, there would be far less need for charters and far more accountability. But in large school districts, the solution to the achievement gap is very hard to centralize and carry out. Also, there are competing interests – parents of gifted students, parents of special ed students, parents who value the arts, union interests, etc. Everyone has their agenda. A charter school can meet a more narrow agenda for a smaller group of students. </p>
<p>One last thing. Here in L.A., the charter school movement is helping LAUSD schools because it’s forcing the district to be more flexible and forcing them to think a little bit more outside the box. In fact, a few reform-minded people have managed to sneak in and are bringing some good energy with them. When the toughest high school in L.A. is given to a charter school organization to run, and violent incidents dramatically decrease, it becomes harder for the district to say there is nothing that can be done and it can bring about some change. That’s a good thing.</p>