Charter Schools, My concern with David Osborne's Recent Report

I attended a meeting on Charter Schools in late June. David Osborne was the main presenter. Osborne is a pioneer of charter schools in America and has done extensive writing and research on the topic. He currently is a Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington D.C. and a Senior Partner at The Public Strategies Group. David Osborne expressed the importance and necessity of charters in American communities. He believes that charters are the enablers of innovation and allows for more experimentation, which is crucial to a quality education system. Charters are becoming more popular because there has been a massive withdrawal of public trust in the education system (statistics show that public trust in the 70s averaged 59%, while currently it has dropped to slightly above 20%).

The original goal of charters was to provide schools with more autonomy in exchange for more accountability. The charter concept allowed for exemption from some state laws that public schools had to abide by (such as teacher required work hours). In exchange for this, charters agreed to more academic accountability, meaning closure if students were underperforming.

David asserts that public schools are only effective for half the students it serves and are built on the assumption that all who attends are inherently motivated. From David’s perspective, charter schools solve these challenges faced by public schools, and provide a learning environment that can change and accommodate the entire student population. Charter schools provide a hefty incentive for teacher success, “if kids don’t learn I will lose my job.” This, according to David, is a benefit of charters that produces consequences for ineffective teachers and ultimately drives staff to embrace fundamental changes.

David’s perspective on charters raises four concerns for me. First, the idea that fear is a better mechanism for success than passion in the teaching profession. David explained how charters have an accountability system that requires teachers to produce student achievement or their jobs can be terminated. For him, this fear is a powerful tool that gives teachers additional motivation not matched by anything else. For David, fear is the difference between heroic educators and mediocre ones. As an experienced educator who has worked both in urban and suburban settings I completely disagree with this assertion. A study by the National Institute of Education at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore cited “intrinsic factors must be present for maximum motivation to occur” (Tin, Hean & Leng, 1996, p.7). It seems more plausible that a teacher would be motivated, initially, because of an intrinsic passion for the profession, not a fear of losing their job if student performance goals are not achieved. The same study concluded that teacher motivation is most influenced by the job itself – teaching (Tin, Hean & Leng, 1996). What does this mean? Teachers are entering the profession because they have passion; fear is a merely a tactic used as a means to immediate significant gains. In fact, teachers are heroic because of the passion they bring with them to the classroom, and fear is not the factor in teacher heroicness, it’s the innate desire to serve children in the learning process.

Second, I would argue that charters face the same issues as public schools.  In his most recent article, Improving Charter School Accountability: The Challenge of Closing Failing Schools, David stated

“ But any rules that apply to all charters must be made with extreme care, to avoid closing effective schools that have low test scores because they educate high percentage of students with learning disabilities, or former dropouts or some other “alternative” population” (Osborne, 2012, p. 4).”

 This is the same obstacle most public schools face, trying to diversify standardized expectations. As charters increase in number the same “traditional” issues will arise. Naturally, charter and public schools are dealing with the same concerns, but Osborne is certain that charters are the “silver bullet” solution. Synthesizing his research, I conclude that in a couple years time, he too will come to realize the same realities the rest of us “traditionalists” already know about education and the absence of any quick fix or easy answer. Currently, David creates a massive chasm between public and charter schools, but I struggle to find any great differences between the two.  

I am concerned that David and his research reinforce the segregation that is all too familiar in our school system. Valerie Strauss wrote about this in her blog when she shared that of the 40,000 homeless school-aged children in New York City public schools, only 100 are enrolled in charter schools (2010). David frequently restated how charter schools are better than public schools, but never mentioned this reality. The truth, as Valerie said, charters cannot be compared to public schools when the distribution of special needs and at-risk students is unequal. It’s the responsibility of charters to take on the same level of burden public schools endure with the needy population. Otherwise, it’s as if to compare apples to oranges or Sidwell Friends to Locke High School. Charters are preserving segregation in schools; New York is a great example of this.

Finally, what concerns me most is the inadequate research that is being used by Osborne and other charter school supporters to make high-stake decisions in education. David refuted CREDOs findings, published in 2009, on charter schools, which said that successes of charters was not significant compared to public schools. David discredits this study with an argument of rhetoric he found on page 32 where it states that the majority of the data was derived from students’ first year in charters. He argues that charters need a couple of years to show their significant successes. My concern is that David will reject any research that does not produce the desired outcomes and thus decisions will be skewed and flawed empirically.

In conclusion, while David provides a strong argument for charters, I disagree. I believe that charters have the potential to be successful, but it is not the silver bullet David proclaims them to be. In fact, it is a matter of time before he realizes why public schools struggle with student achievement. Not because teachers are unmotivated, but because of external influences that teachers and school communities cannot control. Factors that charters work really hard to avoid and isolate in public schools. I applaud his attempt to find a salvation model for education reform in America, unfortunately charters will experience the same fate public schools have endured for the past few decades, and I am curious what his reasoning will be then.

** Let me make it clear, Charter Schools are not bad. In fact, there are some pretty amazing ones. One of my old colleagues teaches at a charter school that focuses on environmental education for elementary students. I like the fact that these schools can create a more innovative curriculum and step-outside the box public education is so strictly confined too. However, like anything else in education, I am not a supporter of this "us vs. them" mentality. Charters are not the golden ticket of school reform and just like public schools, they face the same challenges and failures. David Osborne believes, as he expressed repeatedly, that a public school teacher is less effective simply because they aren't charter school teachers. Additionally, he shared his belief that charter schools are the ONLY way to student achievement. I think many teachers can agree that these assertions are far-reaching and unrealistic. 

Works Cited

Tin, Low Guat, Lim Lee Hean, and Yeap Lay Leng. "What Motivates Teachers?" New Horizons in Education 37 (2006): 1-9. Print.

Strauss, Valerie. "Charters vs. Public Schools: Behind the Numbers." Web log post. The Answer Sheet. The Washington Post, 23 May 2010. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html>.

Osborne, David. Improving Charter School Accountability: The Challenge of Closing Failing Schools. Rep. Washington D.C.: Progressive Policy Institute, 2012. Print.