INDEPENDENCE SCN PAPER Issue Paper 11-93 April 21, 1993 Charter Schools: Colorado’s Mandate For Change A Primer on the Educational Idea that Almost Everyone Favors ‘by Marilyn Blackmon and David S. D’Evelya we INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE =] 14142 DENVER WEST PARKWAY, SUITE 185, =O GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 ESSE (303) 279-6536 FAX (303) 279-4176 Note The independence Issue Paper ate published for educational purposes only andthe authors speak forthemseives. Nothing writen here is © be consrued as necessarly representing the views of the Independence Insitute, or 38 an atempe to illuence any election or legislative actionApr 21, 1998 CHARTER SCHOOLS: COLORADO'S MANDATE FOR CHANGE ‘APrimer on the Educational Idea that Almost Everyone Favors ‘why Parents Demand Charter Schools” By MARILYN BLACKMON ‘As a mother, one principle Inspires and uides my efforts to support charter school fegisiation and create more magnet programs Parents have the right and the esponsibility to choose the education that Is in the best interests of each of their childzen. ‘However, parents can only Ghose from among available schools, and {herein lies the erux of the problem, 1 wil argue here that charter schools are an. tflective. tool for solving that problem, because whey empower parents and teachers {6 create public schoo! programs capable. Sang tne bet interest of dren Based on the accumulating evaluation evidence. on. magnet programs. the ‘opportunities for effective school reform fe especially promising where parents and teachers use that charter-schoo) power {usually only as an implied threat) to create magnet school-within-scheol programs. Defense of Parental Cholce Parents’ right to choose their child's education can be defended by citing several U'S. Supreme Court decisions since 1925, ‘This right ean also be grounded in the larger democratic traditions of western cWvilization expressed in the U.N. Human Rights Charter: “Parents have a prior right forchoose the kind of education that shall be given to thetr children" (Bloom 1992: 9) Parents’ responsibility to choose their ‘child's edveation is similarly grounded in continued on Page? ‘Why They WI be Good for Public Bducation By DAVID S. DEVELYN “What once drew brickbats now seems to be building a bandwagon. From Sen. Bill wens fo the State Board of Education to the Colorado Children's Campaign -- from CACI to Gov. Roy Romer to President Bill Clinton ~-all are endorsing charter schools. Commissioner Bill Randal! calls the idea a way {to revitalize public education by “opening up the system." thdeed, charter schools. is’ the lead education proposal inMandate for Change, considered a blueprint for the Clinton administration. ‘continued on Page 10 In Brief Blackmon. a mother from Boulder, says ‘Sharter schools would serve 13 tierests fnaluding neghborhoods, diversity. equ measuring performance, school pride Toducing dropouts, beter teaching, paren {al twoluerent, rising standards foc {ating ehotoe“matntatning student inter ‘etion, preseroeg extracurricular options, and” strengthening schoo! leadership. ages 29) MDEveiyn, an educator from Evergreen. Says charor schools would be. @ ber for change. a relief value. an RAD lab, on irceoe for entreprenirahip. a boo for teachers, ‘an empowerment or parents. ‘partner for businesses, ain ante or Samenezs, and a fresh start for publle ‘education (Pages 10-12) myth busting. he adds that charter Schgets tool not oe ase. pre costly, unregulated, amateurish My by Fight or anttpuble. Pages 19-14)WHY PARENTS DEMAND CHARTER SCHOOLS Blackmon - Continued from Page 1 the 1973 United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child: "The best Interests of the child shal be the guiding ‘principle of those responsible for his (or Bar} education and guidance, and that sponsibility Hes in the first place with Fis (or her! parents” (Bloom 1982; 9). Market Constraints on Parontal Cholce: Bad News About Schools Is True Even in Well Eduented, AMluent Boulder ‘Students in Boulder Valley Schools perform way above average. giving the Hfusion of an academically excelient Gistriet: but my published analysis (Boulders Sunday Camera. Dec. 15. Yoor, Tpit.) of district Californie Achievement Test data showed that | Boulder Valley isnot 2 value-added Gietnet end that it has been declining in recent years. Boulder also has a sertous problem with student alienation. evidenced by a Gropout mate approaching. 25 _pereent overall and 50 With the change to middle schools, our comprehensive Tanger and become crowded: ths is lable to exacerbate our problems, BEuMake is a strong determinant of higher drop-out rate, lowered student ent for our Hispante students, our largest ethnic minority high schools have grown much ‘because increased Charter Schools Defined ‘The detals can vary. But here & the Gore concepts it has moved from tial tfooute i Phatcher= Bradin” to en iment Munesota end Caloria 10 the “curent, $8,183" proposal. th Coherade A CHARTER SCHOOL, 1S A SEM Aurovowous PaBne ScHOGt. 1k enablished by way of @ charter Serwvoctual perating agreement ra ted by etter @ lca! school board OU the Ideor ts uncooperative) the State Board of Education Ie depres af autonomy concerning govemance, ond facies, is workes! out Grnegotations between the schoo! and the shonerey body. Scievernent, and student alienation/apathy (Toch 1991: 263-271}, arly im 1992 a group of Boulder parents decided to take @ proactive response to the bad news about Boulder schools, founding @ community group called Parents and SECDSG to expand all children’s opportunities for academic excellence in the Boulder yacerns expressed by the excellence larly haunted by massive quantity of Valley Public Schools. Probably the most powerful and scientifically valid international comparison available guevenson and Stigler 1992; Stevenson 1992: Stevensan et al. in Science, seals goal delivers sobermg findings: American students at all levels of ability log je share the many-faceted Joovement (Fock 1991: chap. 21, and we are par Dadenee showing U.S. public schoo’ faling far nort by international standards, ‘Senoudly behind their Asian counterparts in math, «There was only one American fifth grader in the hundred top-scoring students, @ Thockang level of under-representtion, since each of the three nations in the sree ore expected fo contribute about $3 students to the top hundred scorers f RRSEAT Sint 1001 for further enidence of disturbingly poor performanc high-abity American students OUP. + average students in Japanese, Taiwanese, and Minneapolis schools were the SEPSi Gndergarten, but by Sth grade, average Japanese and Taiwanese SRidents ‘scored way ‘above the meen for the total sample. while average Rmesicun fir graders scored way below the mean for the total sample, 2Portraying the evidence differently. only one American schoo! outscored even, REE ISUaE sconng of the Astan schools. Among Ilth graders. only 14.5 percent Urine alwanese and 8 percent of the Japanese scored as low as the average ‘American student in mathemati. Americans were way over-represented among the lowest-scoring students in the {otal sample. Stevenson and his colleagues conclude that #{ Is ridiculous to think America can Stevensom. afi math aad science by the vear 2000 without a radical change In Rmeriean schools and altitudes toward edueation. Most Americans repress the implications of such comparisons, insulating themsehes wth mistaken stereotypes about schools in our competitor nations of Asia eae es trope, In fact, the Aslan students in the above study exibited markedly Fee ec rroms of stress, were given muuch ore complex and challenging problems to Seer era tmore math Manipulatives and hands-on learning. had more Tecess time, see een nore likely to enjoy attending sehool, and displayed the high value Asin Bere places on education (68 percent of the Asian elementary schoo) children SEildren Paisnee for Such educational goals 2s going to college, compared to only 10 Serctnt of the American children. who instead wished for money, toys, or pets in contrast, Parents and Schools members approach the bad news about schools with 2 eeeee ef urgency. The decline of Americe's economy was already the primary TOR APERE Sor breaidental election, and the economy wil only grow worse if we fail {te taise student adnlevement and motivation. oonomie forecasts show rapid growth in high-performance Jobs requiring high levels of academic skills, whe unskilled and low-skilled jobs are fast disappearing Hee eee SSamat Feb. 9. 1990: SCANS 1992}, Students with poor academie skills (Rat Slomal future of high unemployment and minimum wages. In the poignant OSSa ofa Russian saying: During a famine a fat man gets Uninner, but a thin man dies. ur children also need an excellent education in the humanities to help them understand the meaning of lfe, enlarge the horizons of their experience, and anchor thom iss time of rapid social change and extreme indWiduelism (Collins, and jase on 1902 Bellak, Madsen. etal 1985: Raviten and Finn 1987; Gagnon and The BEEHC) Commission 1989, Toch 1001: 85-71). We want them to acquire the character Bra integrity fer leadership centered in the principles of truth, honesty. justice, Fences Gounesy, Heedom, equally, Adelty, se-diseipline, diligence, tolerance. and lve (Covey 2988, 1890), ‘Severe time constraints underline the urgency of prioritizing academics. A ninth grader spends, at best, only 25 pereent of his/her waking hours per year doing Hacmalce. “hs inchades both the time spent m the classroom and the time spent doing Eiaseroun-easigned homework (is less than 25 pereent If he/she spends less than two {hours por scheetcnight doing homework}. That 25 pereent of the student's time ts small od precious, yet itis very often wasted because students are so frequently off-task in IGAaPE clasts, and because we hve ot se te right prorties fr our pubic Projected Impact of Charter School Legislation: Rapid Growin in Number and Quality of Schools Worth Choosing 1 will outline below the advantages of magnet echools-within-schools, argutng that the rapid growth of magne! programs in the U.S. provides the best hope for [nproving Amefican public schools. Magnet schools-within-schools have a high provablity of simultaneously mecting all essential criteria recommended by 3educational reformers from the 1960s to the 1990s: excellence, equity. parent involvement, community support for learning, and humanization of the teaching: learning process. Establishing a magnet program is & manageable-sized educational reform task, a way parents and teachers can make a ference in one small communtty at a time. However, without the implied threat of the charter school option, schoo! boards may, Jealousty guard their power and be unresponsive to parent-teacher requests for Magn ‘programs. Therefore. I support the charter schools Concept, especially because of What Cw do to permit the creation of schools-within-schools ‘At a moment in history when the future of our puble schools is seriously in doubt charter Schools legislation 1s the right kind of new-paradigm. phiralistic policy, the June of policy capable of producing genuine classroom improvement (Pauly 1991 ‘Kearns ano Doyle 1988, Toctt 1991, Chub ané Moe 1980), Advantage 1: Nelghborhood-based Choice. The recently released Camegie study fon choice (Wall Street Journal, Oct. 26, 1992, A7A) found that parents typically choos Schools located near their home or workplace, Multiple sehool-within-schor programs at neighborhood schools would expand parental choice but stl) retain the Convenience of neighborhood schools, munimiang transportation and faciltating continuation of students’ neighborhood friendships. I addition to. serving Substantial fraction of the students in the school's attendance area, such programs could alse funetion as magnet programs to attract sudents from all over the district if they offered a distinctive program, Advantage 2: Win-win Respect for Diversity. Within each neighborhood in ‘Boulder there are clusters of consensus on educational goals and academic excellence, but its rare to find an overwhelming majority favoring a single program. Even with lear majority of parents and teachers supporting one program. converting a particular ‘School to one program would alswaye be s win-lose solution, but offering two oF more ‘School-within-school programs Would eer @ win-win solution and respect diversity. Advantage 2: Aocess and Equity. It is « burden for Jow-income parents to provide transporcation for thet child to attend a magne! school across town, 0 choice of magnet sehools is Icely to be less common among low-income groups than among ‘iddle- and high-income groups. ‘School-within-school magnet programs would make choice much more accessible, providing greater equity. Magnet programas in Bast Harlem (Kirp 1992, Weill Sereet Journal Oct 29, 1982. Al6, Tosh 1991; 256-59, 266-666) and Polly Wiliams’ ffors in Milwaukee (Wall Street Journal. June 6, 1980, A16) demonstrate that low- fncome parents want choice, and that thet: children benefit from i ‘Advantage 4: Performance Goals end Data Made Explicit, As excellence advocates have argued, © tougher academic curriculum is an essential ingredient in educational reform (Foch 1981: 271). The book The Leaning Gap (Stevenson and Stigler 1992) includes a perceptive section analvaing why Americans have such low standards for thelr children's schools. ‘They altnibute iow standards to (1) lack of national performance goals defining what children should leam in each grade. and (2) lack of Elear external standards. These deficiencies can be corrected in a situation where ‘Barents must make choices among programs within the schoo. 1 should be obligatory for school districts to provide objective data so that parents can compare the goals, standards, and actual performance of each school Program against national and international standards. cholees included programs ‘ith clear performance goals and clear world-class external standards, such ae the International Bacoalaureste program, parents would realize how hard children should 4formance of students in other countries work in school to equal the “The more schools that offered programs with world-class standards, the more parents there would be who would have to coniont intemational-comparison evidence In order to choose or reject the programa for thetr children Advantage 8: School Pride Bullds Commitment to Learning. When students and teachers choost a distinctive magne! program, they both tend to develop @ strong pride land sense of ownership ted to the school they have chosen. a better ft ofthe program to inciudual leaming styles and interests, and a resullng increase in comsnltment to learning “There is strong research evidence that permitting students to select from among distinctive programs draws kids into the learning process, resulting in substantial fnereases in academic achievement, increased attendance, and lowered dropout rates: ‘and these effects are strong even in inner-city schools with large minonty enrollments ‘hd now selective admissions policies (Tech 1981: 258-260) Advantage 6: Smaliness Reduces Dropouts and Aenation. Large schools. notably the comprehensive high school, can be divided into smaller magnet programs, each of which has the pulling power of @ distinctive program. In these magnet schools-within- Schools teachers know their students well ahd often work wilh the samme students over jeral years, creating continully and 2 supportive environment. in which both {eachers and students flourish, Teachers and students share sunilar interests, stimulating lwely discussions. “The effects of emall size are very strong, creating strong advantages for students in schovle-within-schools compared to students in large, comprehensive high schools. ‘The benefits are particularly dramatle for disadvantaged students, who have so often. een alienated and apathetic in comprehensive high schools, helping to correct the “Savage inequalities” pointed out by Kazal (1993) Advantage 7: Teaching Improves. Teachers are pulled towards a given magnet ‘because of an interest in the subject matter emphasized and/or the schools educational philosophy, and teachers who select the program work closely together to develop and Enplernent the distinctive curncula and instructional strategies. This produces greater Collegialty and greater accountability (Tech 1991: 261-62) Closer ties develop between students and teachers in magnet schools-within« schools and small magnet schools, and this produces a genuine caring and mutual bligation rarely found in large, comprehensive high schools. In many of the magnet programs, teacher-student relationships are maintained over several years, increasing the opportunities for genuine mentoring and coaching relationships to develop (Tech 1991: 286-67). Advantage 8: Parent-Community Support for Learning. Parent involvement in the chile’s education is well-known fo be a powerful determinant ofa child's success in school, and Toch (1991; 268) shows that parent involvement increases in magnet Programs, Increasing paren\-community support is part ofa larger cultural issue: as Tamar Alexander has said, America needs to create a tradition of valuing academic txcelience. We must honor those who are well-educated. So kids will be motivated to do the hard work of learning ‘Since American students spend, at best, 25 percent oftheir waking hours per year Going academies, itis maportant to wisely use the remaining 75 percent of ther waking hhours per year. the hours when the students are being educated by the community outside the school, Through expanding parental involvement and. community ‘parinerstipe, magnet schools have te capacity to eflectwely educate kids during the 75 5percent of thetr walking tne that Kids spend outside the Influence of schoots. Advantage 9: Raises Standards and Achievement for All. Because the charter school legislation will make possible charter school-within-school programs, our Boulder organization, Parente and Schools-and similar organwations in other Glsincts--could use this legislation as @ tool to raise academic standards for all Students in ll schools, just-as the Colorado Board of Education and national leaders Gre challenging ws to do, Even ia rainorty of parents in any particular school wanted 2 program with high scademic standards, we could still justify a school-within-school program. These programs would then become wedges for raising standards for other ‘Students in the school Magnet programs have resulted im substantial increases in academic achievement, higher ettendance rales, and lower dropout and suspension rates, Bccording to several studies (Toch 1091: 258-260), Some small urban magnet programs have gotten extraordinary results with disadvantaged, inner-city students (Tach 2081 270). “Otaer magnet programs, such as the International Baccalaureate, challenge College-bound students to reach for high levels of achievement, addressing what Singal (7991) has called the “other cnsis in American education,” the crisis of poorer Detformance by top-quartile students now compared to a generation age. Obviously, some magnet schools are poor cholces that must be weeded out as Fatures. but, in general, magnet programs provide a promising opporuunity to Stmultancousty raise academic standards, as advocated by leaders of the educational excellence movement, and te humane schools by increasing student/parent/ teacher Choice and by dividing large schools into smaller schools-within-schools, thus Sdaressing the demands of the 1960s reformers without producing the excesses ed with their efforte and the decline In academic standards that their ideas ‘mn the 1970s and 1980s. Advantage 10: insisting on Cholee. Parents should accept the responsibility, not Just the right, Lo choose the educational program that is best for each of their children, In order to enroll a child in a school with multiple school-within-school programs, parents would have to make a choice between the programs offered. Ideally. wherever Eiferent school-within-school programs were offered, the school would provide parents with the information needed to make 2 well-informed choice in the best Entereses of their child prea tn contrast, parents are rarely confronted with a choice about magnet schools. Magnet schools may be available in district without parents ever learning about their Thefits, or even thelr existence. Open enrollment by tiself rarely produces improvement in individual sehools, and if it does, there is 2 tendency for only higher economic roups to gain access to information about which schools are best, creating inequities, (ozo! 1988: Tech 1991). ‘Advantage 11: Mixing Still Possible. Although school-within-school programs ‘would separate students Sor par of the day. there could be mixing of all students in the ‘Schoo! for physical education, art, music, and extracurricular activiues. ‘Advantage 12: Preserving Extracurricular Options. Attendance at a magnet high school or micéle school euch as Uie proposed alternative high school in Boulder) can Giminish opportunities for favored high school extracurricular activites. In contrast. Secondary students choosing School-within-sehoo! programs would not have to give up Such opportunities as playing on a high schoo! football team or participating in a ‘arching band, ‘Advantage 18: Strong School Leadership Values Pluralism. The Brookings Institation stacy By Chubb and Mee (1090) shows that strong leadership in a school is a 6