Editor’s note: Jim Griffin is president of the Colorado League of Charter Schools
In the recent EdNews blog post, Charters and demographic stratification, Kevin Welner points out a new study from CU-Boulder that compares the demographics of schools operated by Education Management Organizations (EMOs) with their local school districts. The report claims findings of “extensive” segregation in these schools.
First, the Colorado League of Charter Schools takes issue with the use of the term “segregation” when referring to school choice. Segregation is a toxic term associated with governmentally sanctioned, “forced” segregation of another era. The segregation that occurred in our nation’s past was deliberate policy designed to limit public school access. By contrast, charter schools and public school choice provide parents and children an opportunity to increase educational opportunities that have been traditionally unavailable.
Second, the League put the CU-Boulder data to the test by performing its own informal study. We compared EMO-managed charter schools in Colorado with similar, non-charter, neighborhood schools, and with the district.
After backing out online charters, and one operated out of a correctional facility, our data relates to five (5) EMOs and twelve (12) charter schools across multiple districts and communities. Some of these neighborhoods are high minority and low income, while others more white and middle class. In the end, the data contradicts the study’s claim of “extensive” segregation. On the contrary, it reveals that Colorado’s EMO-managed charter schools look more like the district than the neighborhood schools with respect to the percent of minority students they serve.
Parents are demanding higher-quality public school options for their children and rightfully so. Just last week, the Denver Post revealed that of the Colorado students who graduate high school and go onto college, nearly one in three require remedial classes. This doesn’t even touch on the numerous other students (many of whom are minorities) who fall through the system completely and drop out. This is exactly why Colorado charter schools got in the business of providing ALL students, regardless of race or any other factor, a chance at a better education and a better life.
Over the past 16 years, charter schools have proven that there is another option when it comes to public education. Charters have created choice and competition in the public school market – and are showing positive results. Unfortunately, naysayers who want public education to remain exclusively in the hands of those currently operating the system – the status quo–pull out all the stops when trying to convince the public to steer away from better school options for their students, even if it means using emotionally charged terms such as “segregation.”
As Americans we demand choice and snub monopolies when it comes to selecting doctors, automobiles, and grocery stores. Yet when we want to shop for the best public school option for our children – we are criticized. To insinuate that minorities should pass up quality education options for their children if a school’s demographics are too black or too white sounds like some confused priorities.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Hello Jim.
I’m a big believer in re-analyses of data and am glad you’ve done this work. Were you able to look at the data by ELL and special education as well? What do the data for the online charters look like? Is the overall analysis something you could post or share?
The EPIC/EPRU study’s authors did not break out data by state and so did not make any claims about CO. But if you’d like, I can pass along your data/analyses to the authors, and they can see what they can do to reconcile the two different findings. Of course, they were looking at all EMO-operated charters, including online charters, but it’s certainly possible that CO is not consistent with the national segregation trends.
We use the term “segregation” to refer to racial stratification and use the more general term “stratification” to refer to ELL, wealth, and special education stratification. The technical term would be “de facto racial segregation” to distinguish it from “de jure racial segregation” — but it is certainly still segregation. I hope that I was clear during the initial exchange on this cite that neither I nor the study’s authors were in any way “insinuat[ing] that minorities should pass up quality education options for their children if a school’s demographics are too black or too white…” I just went back and looked. In the main post, I wrote, “Pointing to the segregation is in no way condemning the schools, teachers, or students at those segregated schools.” I also wrote, “Speaking for myself, I would never condemn a parent for making such a choice. If a parent perceives his or her best schooling option to be a segregated school, I would certainly hope that the segregation isn’t the reason for that conclusion. But ultimately I’m not in a position to question any given parent’s choice.” I made similar throughout the exchange. I’m not sure, therefore, why you apparently think that I have insinuated this.
I think it might be helpful to simply paste what I wrote as part of the earlier exchange:
“Let me again stress that these studies are not about calling out any parent’s choices as invalid, immoral, racist or elitist. Nor do they argue against charter schools as a policy/approach. The reports’ policy recommendations focus on improving charter policies so that parents’ choice options will more often include diverse schools.
“The extraordinarily defensive reaction among charter supporters brings to mind all the accusations I’ve seen on this website/blog aimed at teacher unions as preservers of the status quo. It appears that these things depend on which status quo is under scrutiny. In the case of charters, I don’t think a legitimate claim can be made that perfection has been reached and that no criticisms or change proposals should be considered. The current reality with charters in CO and across the country is that charters — like non-charters — run the gamut from excellent to awful. The most extensive study thus far — the Stanford CREDO study — suggests that charters probably do worse on average than other public schools. That study is not definitive (no study is). But the overall body of charter research tells us that a great deal of improvement is possible.
“Again, this is not an attack on the existence of the charter sector. I have — and certainly Gary Orfield has — criticized the policies and practices of non-charter public schools much more often than the policies and practices of charters. That doesn’t mean that I’m attacking idea or existence of public schooling. Yes, evidence of segregation has a history in the U.S. that tends to lead to defensive reactions. But if we shield our eyes from that evidence we are much less likely to innovate, reform, and improve.”
Kevin, I sincerely appreciate your response. Especially when you state, “We use the term “segregation” to refer to racial stratification and use the more general term “stratification” to refer to ELL, wealth, and special education stratification. The technical term would be “de facto racial segregation” to distinguish it from “de jure racial segregation” — but it is certainly still segregation.” Your continuous insistence to identify special education as part of this issue gives me some reassurance that students with special needs will continue to be recognized as having the same rights to an appropriate education as any other students. Thank you!
Just try to get a child with Down syndrome into any Colorado charter school. Ain’t gonna happen! Their common (and disparaging) response is “sorry, but we don’t have the services” (oh and by the way, this is the same response you get from private Catholic schools as well). Has anyone informed them that their Local Education Agency (LEA) is required to provide these services that they “don’t have”…. charters need to do their homework before they set up shop and not be so ignorant about how special education works in Colorado. Also, it could help tremendously for them to require that all of their teachers receive training in “differentiated instruction.” This background and training can serve ALL students well and prevent this blantant segregation based on ignorance of lack of resources and services available.
Colorado charter schools are part of a larger LEA (almost always their authorizing school district) that determines the levels of services provided at all schools within their jurisdiction. Charter schools are required to buy into their districts’ special education system, which in turn means they are subject to district decisions and policies as to staffing, teacher ratios, and resource allocation. I just recently heard a parent discuss his fight with the Greeley school district over getting his disabled student into one of the local charter schools – essentially being told the district does not provide “the level of services at the charter school(s)” that his child needed. This in spited of the charters there paying some $700 per pupil to the district for participation in the district’s special education program.