Actually, terry Olson does a hackneyed, sterotype filled 5 minute Betty Crocker review of why some people are against Charter Schools. He conveniently leaves out the salient data that shows the underserved kids are now struggling and pulling the rest of the kids down with them in a race to the median.

A true debate needs to be held regarding Charter Schools. Is it the parents? Is it the administrations? Is it the children themselves, or is it a compbination of all factors? Or is it merely a Hawthorne Effect? No, Olson does not even rise to the level of the very school children discussed.

... and speaking of the Treasurer's race, check out the stereotype of a Republican that Allen Alley has become !!! :) :)

And this isn't photoshopped... you can see some other photos of him in this outfit on the East Oregonian's website.

Oh my!

I have to agree with Kurt. There has to be someone out there giving a better argument against charter schools (although I'm for them). Once I saw the phrase "whether parents are racist or classist or elitist in opting for charter schools." it was over. Lots of fluff signifying nothing. Where is the nerdy, minutiae oriented, statistic loving, arguments that I expect from B.O. ?

I don't buy Olson's argument. Charter schools do have more Title 1 and special ed kids, but they often do better than they would at public schools because they're more open to different learning styles. For instance, Network Charter generally rescues kids who otherwise would have dropped out by having a great experiential learning program. From the other point of view, NCLB actually focuses more on the bottom students than the top by requiring that all schools help those students achieve certain minimum goals. NCLB has actually pushed school systems AWAY from funding higher end TAG programs, since they don't get points for how much kids exceed those minimum standards.

Those of you disagreeing with Terry Olson could use some fact checking. I'm not going to do that for you, except to pull one example: "Charter schools do have more Title 1 and special ed kids..."

Not at all true in Portland. If you take the nearly entirely black Self Enhancement Academy out of the equation, Portland's charters are whiter and wealthier than PPS as a whole, and often dramatically moreso than the neighborhoods they sit in. Charter schools are simply another form of self-segregaton. (Even with Self Enhancement factored in, which has more African American students than the other six PPS charters combined, PPS charters are still whiter and wealther than PPS as a whole.)

I also covered the most recent charter school proposal on PPS Equity. If you want a more general argument about charter schools, I wrote an op-ed on the topic for the Tribune last winter.

To mlw and all the anti-public schools / free market / it's my money and I should be able to spend it anyway I want wingnuts:

If charter schools are about free enterprise and bringing real world business sense to the world of education, then we need to take a real world view and ask, what is the return on investment?

In Ohio alone a couple years back the state spent $424 million on 250 charter schools statewide (that's about $1.7 million per school). So what did the taxpayer get for their money?

• Statewide, 71 percent of charter schools were rated in “academic emergency,” the lowest rating possible.

• In Dayton, no charter schools were rated "excellent" or "effective" (the top two rating categories).

• 79 percent of the Dayton charters either got "no rating" or were rated "academic emergency".

• In Ohio (and what has been mirrored across the country) an annual analysis in 1999 showed charter schools collectively have never outperformed the city’s public school system. This is no small accomplishment - the city school district fell to worst rated in the state (last out of 611 school districts!).

So go ahead, scream till you pass out that you demand "choice" and that charters are better than public because we all know facts have a liberal bias.

I was pretty firmly against the whole charter-school idea until a couple of good friends (and politically progressive folks) became involved in organizing for one. I'm going to withhold a few details, but I will say this charter school is essentially replacing a "country school" that was closed by a school district in one of Oregon's larger towns, said country school being in an outlying area that has been in the throes of transformation to a bedroom suburb. The charter school is going to serve an economically diverse population and allow kids to attend a school closer to their homes than they would otherwise. I have become convinced that there are circumstances where charter schools express grassroots community efforts in the face of bean-counting school-district administrators. I also remain convinced that more broadly, the charter-school movement commonly is a tool in the hands of right-wing ideologues who want to dismantle the commonwealth. The picture is messy....

re: "Showdown" Unless I am totally mistaken it was over at Sun Up this morning....

and so am I on the don't bother to post here list? If so that's fine...

Strike my 10:31:47am with my sincere apologies....

Wow Scott from D.! Way to start off a comment with name calling.

Wow! I'm a wingnut! I'm so honored! Is there a benefits package, or is being right on the facts its own reward?

Actually, I'm very much in favor of public schools, but they're not for everyone. In Oregon, charter schools generally do not compete with public schools in the same way as in other states. In fact, they have to be approved by the school district in which they sit. There's a good letter to the editor on this very subject HERE .

As for whether charter schools in PDX have a higher or lower percentage of Title 1 and special ed kids, the PDX experience does not translate statewide. In Eugene, the percentage is higher. I suspect it varies heavily with the school district that the charter school sits in. Besides, a higher concentration of white kids in charter schools would undermine Olson's point that charter schools are a dumping ground.

We should be very careful about overgeneralizing about charters. They vary quite a bit between schools, district, and states. The lessons from one school, district, or state do not always translate to another.

"a two-tiered system of schools for the elite -- good students with involved parents -- and schools for everyone else --struggling students with disengaged parents."

WOW, I didn't know I was an elitist just because I was doing my job as a parent, the same job my parents did with me, and my grandparents did with them.

Evan - That's a pretty typical interview on FNC. They actually critized both McCain's and Obama's nomination speech (gasp!) - even the pro-mcain commentators. On the other hand MSNBC's Olberman instantly said there is nothing you can criticize about Obama's speech and then Matthews/Olberman were fighting each other on who loves Obama more.

I wouldn't say FNC is that balanced but they are fair. However the more left GE takes NBC they more balanced FNC gets.

Well one freedom that charter schools have is the freedom to fail. The failure rate of charter schools in this state is 20%.

http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/n/view/uscs_news/1654

(note that the above is a pro-charter site)

Many parents and students have a positive experience in charter schools, but if 20% of our public schools in the state closed down it would be a crisis, and would raise a public outcry about mismanagement.

I do believe there is a "hawthorne effect" as it relates to charter schools. Only about 13,000 students attend charter schools in Oregon so it is a "special group" in terms of the hawthorne effect. I do not believe that most charter schools are racist or elitist, but since they have an advantage of involved parents, I don't believe that the charter concept is any better than traditional public schools at teaching the general student population.

My wife and I were hoodwinked about schooling our kids in "open-space schools" during the 70's. That was supposed to be a great new trend that was a proven method in the "laboratory". But when the concept was expanded to the general elementary school population it failed miserably.

One problem with charter schools as I see it is that they suck funds away from school districts, and consequently neighborhood schools. At 13,000 students this not much of an impact on Oregon yet but those 20% of charter schools that have failed have added instablility to public education after taking public funds.

Furthermore, as I have said before, there is pressure on Charter schools to show that they are better than average. But even with the Hawthorne Effect, there are underperforming students, drug problems, and school violence, just like in public schools. Consequently charter schools take action much faster to eliminate these negatives or sweep them under the rug with "statistics".

I tutor two underperforming kids in math and science. They attend a charter school in North Portland. Parents of both kids have been told that perhaps the charter school is not a "appropriate for them". One even faced expulsion because he was in the vicinity of a gun incident. It was only when I became an advocate for him and threatened to blow the whistle on their "bottom-lopping" machinations that they backed off on the expulsion.

I think parents, rightly so, seek out the best educational opportunities for their kids. I have no problem with parents who choose charter schools, choose private schools, or even move to a different city (like Beaverton) that offers "better" public schools. It is the political and anti-teacher rhetoric that I find appalling.

I also believe that teaching is like medicine. neither benefit much from economies of scale. We are not producing widgets here. Just like each person has a unique medical needs, each child has unique educational needs. In the past, our public schools have helped make this country great by addressing those unique needs with rich curricula. Unfortunately, in the last couple of decades we have ignored our children and made them political pawns. We have eliminated after-school and extracurricular activities. We have eliminated options and electives in public high schools, such as Portland's Jefferson High School.

The high school experience, in particular, is much less than that when I went to school in the4 60's - when the space race made quality education a priority for both the right (because of national defense) and the left (because of social concerns). We put time and treasure into our public education system. Rarely did an educational levy fail in my high school district, and when it did, the negative repercussions were felt strongly enough that the levy would pass in the next election. Those "good old days" are gone.

I hope Carla will do a follow-up to the "showdown at noon" since her post at LO a couple years ago is what "introduced" me to the semi-anonymous blogger obsessed with Jack Bog.

Anchors such as Megyn Kelly and Julie Banderas are why I prefer Fox News over that snooze fest called CNN. Anytime I am having a hard time falling asleep, I just turn on CNN, hum in on the monotone voices of their news anchors, and let them lull me to sleep.

My major beef with Fox News is that partisan hack called Sean Hannity. Hannity & Colmes is so blatantly biased with a lot of the coverage directed at taking bits & pieces of Obama speeches and spending 20+ minute dissecting one gaffe in a 30+ minute speech with a panel of a bunch of jack off conservatives and limpy liberals.

Too bad Alan Colmes is such a spineless turd. They need to replace Colmes with Bob Beckel so that Hannity can get called on his bullshit and have that smug ass smile turned into a frown.

RW: "Well one freedom that charter schools have is the freedom to fail. The failure rate of charter schools in this state is 20%."

Duh! - that's the point!

A Public system not only has a higher failure rate, they keep not "educating" students, passing them along, and continue to ask for more money from the taxpayers.

Don't tell me you think when a students of a failed charter school quits and stay home until they are 18.

I'm no fan of Canfield's politics or writing, but outing him is lousy.

Jack didn't, Canfield did hours ago on Oregon Reality. BTW, this wasn't a disagreement about politics, this was a personal and professional attack against Jack. The attack was done in a chicken shit manner, and Canfield got what he deserved.

Johnnie sez: "Don't tell me you think when a students of a failed charter school quits and stay home until they are 18.

OK....someone else who's got a problem with grammar and composition.

About the Tucker Bounds inanity, with a first name like Tucker, is it surprising he has a lot of pent up, irrational rage? C'mon parents, think before you name em.

Thanks for the compliments, Kurt Chapman. My argument may indeed be "hackneyed". Who am I to judge? It would be helpful, however, if you would point out just where my post veers into the banal.

But I think you miss the essential point. Charter schools, as Steve points out, serve a select segment of the public school population, typically the kinds of students who would likely do well in any educational setting. If charter schools become a larger part of the public school choice menu, as Bush, and now Obama, would like, a two-tiered system of public education is inevitable. If I'm wrong in that conclusion, please explain to me the errors in my thinking.

And while you're at it, please share with me and other Blue Oregon readers the "salient data" demonstrating that underserved kids pull other students down. I'm not sure that I fully understand how that relates to charter schools.

As for "racist" parents, Adam L., well, you'd have to follow the discussions on my blog to understand the reference.

One last point. The illustrious (and thin-skinned) Jack Bogdanski once called me "pathetic". "Hackneyed" sounds good by comparison.

Thanks for the notice, Kari.

Holy shit that's some seriously backward ass thinking, Carla.

JDW: Sorry, I got a technical undergrad and graduate degree instead of a liberal arts degree. So, while liberal art degree grads can write grammatically correct notes on blogs (and notes in general), I can't or better yet don't. That's ok, I have a high paying job that adds value to the world economically, environmentally and sustainably. I save my writing for published articles.

I get a kick out of grammar police on blog comments!

Ain't it grand, Anon? I love it when people go out of their way to buffet my POV. :)

No I didn't. You did, and you don't even realize it. You don't even know who you are!

Carla

I will have to say that I respectfully disagree with you on this one. If you or anyone else wants to challenge something I have said here, that is one thing. That goes with the territory. But if someone, and anonymous at that, decides to attack my family or my professional reputation, I couldn't and wouldn't sit idly by.

Best regards, Mike in Salem

Re-read the exchange, Carla, did I talk smack about you, or was it about "your thinking," specifically in regard to this issue.

It's not even close to the same kind of nasty things that the turd was writing about Bojack, yet it still prompted you to fall back to the thinly veiled attempt at intimidation yourself with the notion of how easy it would be to "out" me.

You don't even know who you are, Carla. Moreover, carla, do you really think I give a flying rat fuck if you use your little BO tools to "out" me. Sheesh.

Our entire exchange for me was more about proving how easy it was to poke a bear who takes herself entirely too seriously anyway. Thanks for continuing to make my point.

I do think ol' Canfield got what he deserved. The idea that you would defend somebody's right to anonymously talk shit about someone's family is absurd. Read Canfield's own defense. I dare you not to come away from that laughing.

I invite any Blue Oregon policy wonks to join the conversation on charter schools and PPS district policy over on my blog.

Just make sure you know what you're talking about before chiming in.

I want to comment on the OEA professional staff strike. It’s appalling to me that the OEA board and management have abandoned their own union principles and forced their professional staff out on strike – especially at a time when we desperately need all of us working together to defeat Bill Sizemore’s measures at the ballot. The 42 members of the OEA-Professional Staff Organization work tirelessly all around the state supporting and ensuring the rights of OEA members . And it’s not just OEA members that PSO staff support – it’s every Oregonian who cares about the future of public education in this state. Rather than recognizing the critical work that PSO does, OEA is insisting on a lengthy list of rollbacks to the contract. Can you imagine - A union proposing cuts in healthcare and retirement benefits for their unionized staff? A union gutting workplace protections for their unionized employees? A union that wants to make it harder for their dedicated staff union to spend time with their families when the staff puts in hundreds of hours of overtime? OEA has abandoned their union principles and violated their own bargaining standards in their treatment of their unionized staff. OEA needs to step up and act like a union.

"You're not getting the point"

That's a fascinatingly detailed rebuttal.

My kid just started kindergarten at a charter school in Salem. I decided to send him there after we explored all our options- neighborhood school, private schools, homeschool, and of course charter.

I liked the potential for a great education at private schools. I went to Oregon Episcopal School for 1-3 grades and Czechoslovakia, cornucopia, and poltergeist were my 3rd grade spelling words! The main drawback was that I didn't like the SES segregation at private schools (and of course the cost).

I liked the control of homeschooling, but I didn't like the relative social isolation.

I liked the convenience of my neighborhood school, but I didn't like the fact that they didn't respond to phone calls, didn't have an orientation, and seemed generally unresponsive.

The thing I liked about the charter school was that I'd get to have my son going to school with kids whose parents had demonstrated that they took their kid's education seriously. I also liked that they followed a schoolwide curriculum (IB) and the fact that the school was so small.

We're only a week into it, but at drop-off and pick-up times, I don't see a disproportionate number of BMW's and Mercedes (besides my own :) ). I see a lot of late 90's minivans. I don't know for sure, but there doesn't seem to be excessive socioeconomic isolation there.

I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fact that I had choices in my son's education. It's possible that I made the wrong choice, but if I had had no choices but public school, I would resent it and I guarantee I would not be an advocate of the current public school system. I very well may have sent my son to a private school and voted against every school funding mechanism that came my way.

They fact that there are public resources for homeschool and charter school students goes a long way to generating political support for the public school system. I think advocates of forcing people into the old neighborhood school system are not in touch with the fact that there is widespread disaffection for that system. Telling them to simply volunteer more is not going to accomplish anything.

I don't keep up with educational literature, but I wonder if there is any talk about the fact that we haven't seen any disruptive innovation in k-12 education in 50? 60? years. I recently read an article about disruptive innovation in education by Clayton Christensen, I thought it was very interesting. It will be interesting to see if we see anything come of this.

Carla

The only problem I have with your argument is that he used a public blog to say some things and an anonymous blog to say other things. I feel that once you blog publicly, you loose the right to do so anonymously, especially if that entails "attack" blogging.

Just my opinion. Thanks for the civil discourse.

Mike

Carla,

<h2>Ordinarily I'd agree with you about Jack Bog, but if someone is posting things "anonymously" that at least border on libel, then it seems appropriate to out the person who's done it.</h2>