John,
Two things come to mind, one while true academic progress does take time I believe it is incumbent on those of us supporting charter schools to find "evidence" and to quickly and accurately and make it available to whoever will listen. We have found in Michigan that even limited information is welcomed by policy leaders, media, community leaders. And it tends to build their interest in charters.
The second part of your thought is important to. Will an authorizer consider what is really happening at the school? Being most familiar with Michigan, we see a strength in our charter school law which allows state universities to charter public schools. They are removed enough from local politics, and in Michigan are provided funding for their oversight, and are prioritizing academic achievement, looking to evaluate their charter schools on a academic "value-added" basis. Several of the Michigan universities would be good models.
If there is no such authorizer present, I would still want to have "evidence" of what the school is doing. We work with the charters in Michigan, encouraging them to "make their case" to have data, keep demographic stats, document the stories of success and make a point to communicate what they have done.
Having said all that, the answer to "what do we mean by quality" is still difficult. Meaning, does a school that focuses on high school at-risk populations get evaluated the same as an early elementary "gifted" program? Michigan has a charter program aimed at special needs high school and post high students. I believe, charter schools can, and need to be, leaders in helping to provide meaningful solutions to these issues. Solutions that work for kids and parents, without jeopardizing the flexibility that makes these new public schools so rich. At the end of the day we will need to have demonstratable "evidence" of some type.
Dan
Posted as a reply to:
Defining Success by John Taylor
|
|
