Charters and More: A Harrowing Ride to the Future, Part One: Setting the Stage

I don't have to worry about stirrin' up trouble with this post, either personally or professionally.

Because, I have no readers.

Let this tree fall in the woods.

This essay could be subtitled "Foundations of Public Education".

I've been challenged in my career to say, well, what's wrong with charter schools? Private schools? Home schooling?

In and of themselves? Pretty much; nothing, nothing, and, well, next-to-nothing.

The problem is who should pay for them.

If we start with a premise that public schools are failing, then perhaps we ought to be about finding a way to educate our youth that is successful. We need a literate society, right? To be able to compete with whomever. American ingenuity and all that. Or, to ensure our elected officials are the best (oops). So let's find, and fund, an alternative that works. This makes sense.

Of course, the premise is flawed. Public schools work. Just not for everyone. It's sort of like laws. Or prison. Most people I know don't want to break laws. More to the point, they don't want to get caught and "do the time". Who hasn't breathed a sigh of relief when our expired parking meter didn't result in a ticket? Going to court for moving violations? Not fun. Going to jail for a spell? Well, not many of us have experienced that, and with good reason. It's not fun. And yet, people go to jail every day.

And most people who go to prison don't want to go back. It's just that, well, things happen, right?

The problem is, laws don't prevent crime, and prisons don't remediate criminals. Not everyone responds to enforcement, fines, and incarceration.

And so it is with schools. They fail some people. Despite good intentions of school people, and ongoing efforts, challenges abound, and kids disengage, and don't learn, and drop out. Certainly some are pushed out. Most leavers are simply of a mind of a limited return on investment for their time and effort. They are 14, or 15, or 16 when they effectively, if not actually, drop out. At a time in their lives when they know all there is to know, right?

Those who would "solve" the failure of public schools put forth the notion that public funding for alternative solutions "that work" is necessary. If we're going to spend taxpayer money, let's not throw it away. However, solution proponents typically fail to identify for whom their solutions "work". The charter school exemplars they do cite are typically schools that "work" for students the existing public systems already serve quite well.

And who might that be? Look only to socio-economic status. Children not living in poverty, who have certain other advantages as well, do just fine in public schools.

It is students living in poverty who not being well served.

And, it is not all students living in poverty who are poorly served by traditional schools. For example, there are several family characteristics that associate with school success for children. Among them is the presence of parents who believe in quality education.  They are the parents who make good decisions about where to buy a house, or rent, when school boundaries exist. Also, they seek good schools (by whatever definition, and generally by reputation and/or word-of-mouth) when public "school choice" is available, or when publicly funded charters are available. By "good decisions" I mean selecting a school environment for their children they believe is a "best fit" (their definition, whatever they decide) and then supporting the school as a partner in educating their child.

A belief in the value of a good education, and a willingness to collaborate with a school, do not require wealth. One can support and partner regardless of income. The only requirement is a particular mindset.

Consider this scenario: I have had parents, one pair in particular, berate me as an elementary principal for disciplining their child. Nothing egregious in the scenario; just following the steps of the discipline code, and moving to the "principal calls parents" level, after the teacher had done so and not been able to foster a change in the child's behavior. Not willing to partner, the parents "pulled" their child and enrolled in a charter, angry with me and our school.

A few months later, they came back. It turned out the charter had a discipline code too.

Most traditional public school systems that have charter schools in close proximity find this reality replicating all too often. It also happens when attendance boundaries in traditional school systems become permeable with school of choice programs (with or without charters present). And the problem is that the parents aren't looking for a "best fit" for their child(ren). They are looking for a "best fit" for themselves. They are unwilling to support and partner until, and unless, they find a school and/or district that aligns with their world view.

Which, of course, gives rise to private schooling, and ultimately, on this line of logic, homeschooling. As stated earlier, there is nothing "wrong" with these venues, except when one considers the commonweal. It is difficult, if not impossible, to build a "public good" in a social sense without common experience. Values and social norms are founded and shaped via interpersonal interaction. So if we have a system of educational experience wherein it is family-, or tribe-, or religious belief-driven, development of a societal "experiential similarity" is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Social development becomes fractious and unruly. It becomes unpredictable.

Public schools came into being, in this country, specifically, to allow for a common experience in support of an enlightened citizenry. Early in our history, schools were only available to the well-to-do. Actually, initially, schooling was seen as needed only for those headed to the clergy. Thus, many schools were specifically faith-oriented. Divinity was the calling. Sacred teachings, and liturgical learning, permeated curriculums. One needed to read to preach, and the only book was a Bible. And these schools were private.

Public schools came later. They were available to all at no cost, and were borne of the notion that everyone deserved a chance, regardless of belief systems, and education was seen as a key to success in an increasingly complex (agrarian to industrialized) world. Land grant colleges were supported in Congress: farmers needed to read in order to understand crop science so as to maximize yield and minimize the impact of drought and flooding. Concomitantly, early manufacturing required literacy and numeracy as well, for supervisors and bosses if not for laborers.

The fact of the one-room school in rural and other settings reflected this goal. The later development of comprehensive high schools in towns was due mainly to population density and cost containment. Farm kids had trouble making it to school due to distance, and of course the summers-off schedule that persists to today was an accommodation for our rural heritage.

But at the core, education was made universally available (well, almost; enduring issues of poverty and race exist but that’s tangential to the current argument) in order to help shape and support a nation. It was meant to provide a common experience, as well as a common opportunity, for everyone.

And it was funded through taxes. Most commonly, the funding mechanism was real property taxation, certainly here in Michigan. And that structure gave rise to a state-level school governance mechanism. Again, in Michigan, the State Board of Education, an elected body, and the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) which is lodged in the executive branch of the Michigan government.

Adding to the governance picture, Michigan has locally-elected school boards which oversee local school districts. While subject to state law, districts are loosely under the control of the MDE as they are separate legal entities. However, to underscore: schools in Michigan are under “local control”.

Another layer of influence over school operations is the creation, in Michigan, of Intermediate School Districts (ISDs) which were created initially to support local districts in the provision of services to local students. Most commonly, vocational and special education programs were/are housed at ISDs, and other services are provide through ISDs, such as accounting, transportation, some curriculum services, substitute teachers, and other regionalized supports.

ISDs have elected Boards; similar to local districts, ISD Boards create policy and guidelines for operations. They also fire and hire ISD superintendents, who in turn make staffing decisions in ISDs, and this is mirrored in local districts. This is important because there are mechanisms and opportunities for public input and participation in school governance at the local, regional, and state levels in Michigan.

Next: A look at Big Testing in Michigan