Re: [Mpls] Minneapolis school 'competition'

[Jeanne Massey]

Fredric Markus writes: Is there not an opportunity for charter schools to "cream" the population of school-age children? Per-pupil public money across the board sounds good but if the special needs and the thousands of ESL kids are concentrated in the public school system BECAUSE it is the public school system, if the charter schools can prefer to accept only children who exemplify less daunting challenges, the public school dollars aren't going to go as far "per pupil" as will the public dollars that make their way to a private system that basically has an easier row to hoe. JM: I don't believe creaming is what charter schools do. Most charter schools aim to serve low income students and/or students of color who, historically, have not been well educated in the main system. According to US Charter Schools and Mpls District web sites, there are 19 charter schools in Minneapolis, 12 of which are sponsored by the Mpls District.  See http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/schools/school_guide/charter_school.html. http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/sp/8. The US Charter School web site profiles charter schools (last updated 2003).  The share of students of color and the share defined as living in poverty in some of the Mpls charter schools are as follows:                                               % students of color    % students living in poverty Twin Cities International        100                            100 Chiron                                        86                            90 Harvest Prep                             99                            63 New Vision                                64                            65 El Colegio                                  84                            66 Cedar Riverside                        98                            55 Charter schools, unlike private schools, do not cream, but instead serve kids who may be falling between the cracks of our education system. Moreover, charter schools, by law, do not charge tuition, have no religious affiliation, nor have selective student admissions.  In these ways, they are distinct from private schools. They are also accountable to their sponsoring district for educational outcomes. As such, while they divert funding, on a per pupil basis, from the sponsoring district, they seem to serve a purpose in the public system. Essentially, they are are an adjunct to the public school system and serve a public purpose.  I'm not a proponent of vouchers for private schools, but can support public funds for charter schools IF these schools are held accountable to the public for outcomes, as they are required to do.  Those that are not meeting the educational needs of the students they serve should no longer receive sponsorship (i.e., funding) from the District. There are justifiable concerns about the quality and viability of charter schools, and this should be the primary concern of the Mpls District, not that charter schools are taking kids away from the District's other schools. Charter schools are not a magical fix, but to the extent they work and serve a share of our student population better than current public schools, I think we shouldn't view them as competition, but rather as part of the solution. Lastly, a question, since I haven't seen the District's full enrollment report yet (there's a summary of it on the District's web site):  What is the impact of home schooling on enrollment?  According to the home schooling section of the District's web site, home schooled students totaled 482 in 00/01 (latest figure). The number peaked in 97/98 at 537.  I wonder what the District predicts future growth to be? Jeanne Massey Kingfield