OlsonOnline: Charter Schools: The pros, the cons, the school board

Charter Schools: The pros, the cons, the school board

At the Portland School Board meeting Monday evening, David Wynde pronounced that the test for any charter school application is whether the proposed school meets an obvious need.

In the case of LEP, the charter high school under consideration, Wynde said the school was clearly serving students whose needs weren't being met by existing schools. The school clearly passed the "need" test.

With all due respect to Director Wynde, isn't that more a commentary on the state of Portland's traditional high schools. especially the poorer schools like Jefferson, Roosevelt, Marshall and Madison, which have been so badly treated, reconfigured, mismanaged and "downsized" by top-down district mandates? And isn't that the cause of public discontent with traditional schools? Isn't that the impetus for the creation of alternatives like charter schools?

The small size of the Leadership and Entrepreneurship Charter High School --enrollment 217, about a third the size of Jefferson -- accounts for both its appeal and its ability to innovate, to remain flexible, and to stay student friendly. Its tiny size also counters the notion that it meets the needs of the far greater number of students who are ill-served by traditional PPS high schools.

The eagerness of school board members to get LEP to fix its financial problems --it hasn't paid its monthly PERS obligation since last July, for example-- so that the board could eventually re-grant its charter was palpable at Monday's meeting. Ruth Adkins gushed that she hoped LEP would quickly get its financial troubles behind them so that it could "grow" to serve an even a greater number of students.

But there's the rub, isn't it? As I wrote in a comment to PPS Equity,

"...if charters were to become as large and diverse as the typical neighborhood school, they would instantly lose their appeal to those –most, anyway– who seek an alternative to traditional public schools."

Charters as they now exist meet the needs of a relatively small number of students (and parents) who want out of traditonal programs. But they do very little, by their very nature, for the vast majority of public school students. In other words, they do little to promote the common good. And isn't that the mission of a public school district?

As Steve Rawley, the eminence grise* of PPS Equity, said in a comment to the same post,

"...some charters might get some students access to the kind of pedagogy you passionately seek.

"I just don’t see how they advance the cause for all students."

*(By which I mean head honcho and resident genius. Steve isn't old enough to have gray hair. Not much, anyway.)

Posted by Terry Olson at 04:37 PM | Permalink

The comments to this entry are closed.