Number 2 Pencil

Working with their hands tied

The headlines blare: "Pa.'s major school privatization try fails." But read just one or two paragraphs in to discover the roots of the problem:

Edison Schools, a for-profit company hired four years ago to run eight of the city's nine schools, is pulling out in June, partly because it has not gotten paid about $4 million in fees.

The decision followed a tumultuous year that began poorly - with book shortages, teacher shortages, and a riot at the high school that led to 28 arrests - and got steadily worse, with Edison at the mercy of local officials when it came to control over the district's finances and getting the information it needed to do its job.

Among other things, it turned out that the district's poor accounting concealed a $35 million budget deficit. District officials said recently that without an immediate loan to pay teachers, the system would have just $9 left in the bank.

"We have not been able to work well together," Edison spokesman Adam Tucker said. "We knew that we were no longer going to be enough of an active agent for positive change."

Could any system work well when students riot, bad teachers can't be dismissed, and local officials mismanage all the cash?

Edison also found itself in a perpetual three-way power struggle with the board and the central administration. The contract did not allow Edison to hire or fire teachers. The company also did not control the district's finances and had limited ability to shift resources to places that needed them. It was not involved in generating the faulty information that hid the system's budget deficit.

Edison's Tucker said the company struggled just to get accurate information from the district on student enrollment.

Edison's experiences in Chester are a sharp contrast to its tenure in Philadelphia. There, the company began work amid regular protests by hundreds of parents and students opposed to privatization. But after a few years, its reviews have been largely positive. Test scores at several schools have risen. Complaints about its ability to operate in a big city have dwindled.

A mixed blessing

A columnist for South Carolina's The Common Voice is happy that SC state standardized tests are ranked as challenging, but frustrated that these results are being trumpeted by opponents of school choice:

In the current edition of Education Next, the Hoover Institute lauds states that embrace rigorous academic standards. South Carolina got “straight A’s” for linking its PACT grading scale to a test known as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP)...The report was co-written by Paul E. Peterson, a Harvard government professor, who praised South Carolina for high standards in testing. He surmised that testing reports can be misleading. “If you have high standards, you are going to have more failing schools. I think South Carolina has high standards"...

Peterson, a school choice advocate, urged readers not to misuse his conclusions in the school choice debate. He specifically stated that he doesn’t want his “article to be read as saying there is no need in South Carolina to have a tuition tax credit.” Enter Mrs. Tenenbaum, South Carolina’s Education Superintendent, who quickly embraced Mr. Peterson’s praise and ignored his plea. She said, “Straight A’s for our rigor demonstrates that South Carolina has risen to the challenge and set demanding proficiency standards.” Then she said the article undermines advocates of a tuition tax credit law that failed to pass the Legislature this year.

I agree with columnist Ralph Bristol that the bad attitude here is, "We are doing better than you thought, so there’s no need for pressure to improve."

The fight over schools in Charlotte

Federal desegregation is no longer mandated in Charlotte, NC, and some are fretting over the possible return to segregated schools, even though the new color makeup is determined by parental choice:

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district, free from a federal desegregation order, adopted a colorblind plan for student assignment in 2002 that is producing more racially isolated schools...and more schools enrolling high concentrations of poor children.

From the mid-1970s through the 1980s, the North Carolina school system made up of Charlotte and surrounding Mecklenburg County earned national acclaim as the "city that made desegregation work." The key was a landmark 1971 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, that cleared the way for Charlotte—and districts nationwide—to use mandatory busing and race-based student assignment as tools to achieve integration.

Now, many observers wonder whether Charlotte-Mecklenburg's school buses are headed in the right direction.

"Charlotte is stumbling and it's falling," laments Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "In a couple of years, in terms of racial composition of the schools, the district is going to be back where it was prior to Swann."

The "problem" with the new plan is that parents now have a choice of schools and their children are guaranteed spots in neighborhood schools. Parents are choosing those local schools, and the result is that schools are gradually becoming as segregated as their neighborhoods. The district is 43% black and 42% white, and some fear that the black schools are destined to go downhill.

Superintendent James L. Pughsley acknowledges that the system faces a crossroads: "Are we going to be one of those large, urban districts that allowed themselves to slip behind? We don't have to be. We have a chance to define our destiny."

A white parent, William Capacchione, sued the school system in 1997, alleging that its race-based admissions policy for magnet schools was unconstitutional. That lawsuit eventually led to the reactivation of the Swann case. In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, in Richmond, Va., affirmed a lower-court ruling that Charlotte's schools were free of the vestiges of segregation...

What followed, some observers caution, could undo the gains Charlotte made during the years of desegregation.

"The Charlotte-Mecklenburg system may be allowing individual choice by parents to take such a predominant role, without doing the social math and looking at the communitywide impact of those decisions," says Jack Boger, the deputy director of the University of North Carolina's center for civil rights in Chapel Hill. "The system will become terribly segregated—with no single person having done a wicked thing."

Do I hear a complete disregard for individual choice and parental involvement in that statement? Are parents supposed to do the "social math" before they decide where to enroll their children? For that matter, before they move to the safer suburbs where the tax base is stronger and the schools presumably better?

This suggestion seems appalling, and there's evidence to suggest that forced desegregation didn't fix the achievement gap anyway:

Eric J. Smith, who served as the superintendent here from 1996 to 2002, says that after more than 20 years of busing, disparities among Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools persisted, from the condition of facilities to the quality of teachers. Smith, now the superintendent of the Anne Arundel County, Md., schools, says most black students—whether they attended desegregated schools or not—were not making the grade.

What does seem to work is infusing money into high-poverty school to improve teacher pay and reduce class sizes. The money situation remains contentious, though; suburban schools are overcrowded and suburban parents want that money for new schools for their kids.

In fact, the school officials quoted in the article seem to hold suburban parents responsible for just about every problem. They didn't do the "social math." They want more schools for their kids. They didn't help balance racial diversity when given a choice of schools. They used the "home-school guarantee" to send their kids to - gasp! - schools close to home. Their high-paying jobs guarantee that the money will "follow the white children." And so on.

But the soccer moms and white collar dads are fighting back:

A vocal and well- organized crop of suburban parents insists that school feeder patterns remain stable. Parent activists backed two newly elected school board members who are staunch supporters of the neighborhood-school guarantee, creating a majority on the nine-member board.

Teresa Hermanson, who moved to Charlotte's southern suburbs five years ago, believes the system's preoccupation with race- based assignment led to fractured communities. Over nine years, she says, the elementary school attendance zone in her neighborhood has changed five times.

Hermanson, a white stay-at-home mother with traces of a Long Island, N.Y., accent, organized Parents for Education in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools last year. The group advocates high-quality schools and a consistent pupil- assignment plan that addresses the growing student population—issues that she says transcend race.

Social engineering vs. parental power. Which idea will triumph?

The fight over school choice in DC

According to Carrie Lucas of the Independent Women's Forum, the soon-to-be-voted-on Washington, DC, "omnibus bill" on education currently contains a bill on a school-choice program, which would offer low-income Washington parents scholarships worth up to $7,500. Problem is, the teachers unions are fighting it tooth-and-nail, and the members of Congress - many of whom don't live in DC - might be willing to let it slip out:

Despite spending $12,000 per pupil — the highest per-child expenditure in the nation — the Washington, D.C., public-school system is in perpetual crisis. The nation's capital boasts the lowest score on the National Assessment of Education Progress, a national standardized test. Many schools are unsafe and crumbling.

[DC mom] Tracy knows the frustrations felt not only by parents, but also by the students who receive worthless educations. She describes one D.C. graduate she knows who was forced to enroll in GED classes after high school because he lacked the basic language skills required to advance in the workplace.

...the D.C. school-choice provision should be a slam-dunk in Congress. Unfortunately, the program is in a precarious position because it directly benefits only those families living in the District. Even members of Congress who believe that D.C. parents deserve more options and who support the concept of school choice are being tempted to let this provision slip. These members are understandably anxious to go home to their own families and districts, not stay and fight for a program that doesn't affect their constituents. The teachers' unions — who view all plans that allow students to escape from government-run schools as a threat to their monopoly, and ultimately, to their paychecks — will oppose any omnibus bill that includes D.C. choice.

To be eligible for the scholarships, a four-person household would need to make less than $35,000 a year, which means they're families who can't afford to move where the schools are better. And the waiting lists for charter schools are long.

More about the plan can be seen here.

Tensions over school choice in Michigan

Since 1996, Michigan has allowed districts to accept students from outside their boundaries. Parents who felt their child's school was failing them have accepted the transfer offers in increasing numbers each year; 6,200 students tranferred in the school year this program began, and that number rose to 33,506 by 2001-02. Some school districts willingly accept kids because they value "diversity", others because they need the money (their school districts don't have enough youngsters in the local population). In order to protect kids who might have poor academic or disciplinary records due mainly to bad schools, the transfer school districts are forbidden by law from checking into students' disciplinary records and previous academic performance.

Some parents are very happy about this; others, less so. For example, students who were enrolled in predominately-black Wayne County schools were given the choice to transfer to other schools. Some of the school accepting transfer students are in predominantly-white Oakland County. Now, bubbling resentments over choice rules and regulations, apparent racism, and the value of "diversity" are brewing in one apparently foul stew:

A storm swelled all year in the Madison School District, one of only two in south Oakland that accepts Wayne County schools of choice students. Unflattering depictions of "Wayne County kids" were tossed around at Board of Education meetings by parents angry the district's borders opened wider than its neighbors'. The rest closed ranks at the county line.

Every time a parent said "they're" ruining the district, some cringed, because Wayne County sounded like a code word for black. Oakland County is predominantly white; the segment of Wayne County bordering the region is mostly African-American.

It doesn't take a genius to do the math and pinpoint ethnic diversity as one of the most controversial aspects of schools of choice, according to Kurt Metzger, a Pleasant Ridge resident and researcher at Wayne State University's Center for Urban Studies...

Diversity is a side effect of schools of choice, embraced by some, battled by others, and impossible to ignore. South Oakland districts get more diverse every year whether or not they accept Wayne County students.

Tension is showing in some districts, where parents, staff and students complain that choice kids bring down test scores, cause fights, form gangs and sexually harass local girls.

That's a pretty wide range of complaints. I'm sure some kids are rotten apples, but why is the animosity not being directed towards the school administrators, who presumably can monitor disruptive behavior on school grounds? Is the problem here with certain "Wayne County kids", or is it really that the parents think the school officials are not doing anything to ensure that those kids learn to play by the rules?

"A lot of people seem to see it as a negative, that these 'others' are coming to our district," said Stephanie Hall, public relations director for Ferndale schools. "The euphemisms we hear are that we are going to dumb down the curriculum. We hear a lot of reference to 'those' kids."...

Some question whether the protests are really about schools of choice or if they're objections to filling local schools with people of other races and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Some of these parents might be nervous about having "different" kids in their schools, but if, for example, kids are indeed being allowed to form gangs in schools, I can see why some parents might think that's a negative. Do these parents feel that transfer students are immune from criticism? Do they feel pressure to allow bad behavior in the name of "diversity"? And why are the previously gang-free schools allowing that behavior on campus?

Minority population skyrocketed in most local districts the last 10 years, posting huge increases in Berkley - 337 percent, almost 95 percent in Ferndale, 161 percent in Lamphere, 182 percent in Royal Oak, and Madison, struggling most openly with diversity issues, had a 2,733 percent hike. Those numbers do not include the influx of Albanian, Chaldean and other ethnic groups that aren't tracked by the Michigan Department of Education, but are more visible than ever in classrooms and hallways.

Yup, that's not a small change. Not surprising that there's some hue and cry about it. And there do seem to be some obvious and quantifiable negative effects on school districts because of the transfer students:

Madison held a special meeting in September where parents argued vigorously against opening to Wayne County kids and brainstormed alternative ways to raise money without schools of choice, which now provides about 20 percent of its annual budget. Madison used the influx to nearly demolish a $4 million deficit in the last seven years, but it's not worth it to many parents, who bitterly complain about the turn their district has taken in recent years.

School officials haven't been able to track it, but some are convinced droves of in-district kids are leaving largely because of schools of choice...

...schools of choice forced Madison to add remedial tutoring to teachers' work. The district funds hall monitors and extra security because of problems that came with choice, she added.

So how do these concerns stack up against parents who see schools like Madison as lifesavers for their struggling kids?

Kirk and Shirley Box of Detroit, who drive their 11th-grade daughter to Madison High School every day, acknowledge they've heard about problems coming from schools of choice kids. They say their daughter is thriving in ways she never did in her own dilapidated district.

"She's doing good in the classes and everything," Kirk Box said. "I think that they should keep it open. They've been voicing that they've been having some problem with schools of choice (students) coming in, but that shouldn't stop them."

Interestingly, though, the Boxs think that only "the cream of the crop," and not the troublemakers, should be allowed to take advantage of the school choice program (currently, that's not allowable under Michigan law), not least because the good choice kids are tarred with the same brush as the bad:

"My daughter has had some problems with schools of choice kids," Box said. "She says that it really makes it hard on her. It's not all the schools of choice children, but some make it bad for all of them."

So what's the reality, and what's myth?

Kimball High School in Royal Oak tracks the number of suspensions it hands out. Rumors run rampant about "gangs" of Middle Eastern and black kids harassing in-district students, and several fights between teens of different ethnicities were noted by students, but choice and non-choice kids run neck-and-neck every year where misbehavior is concerned, administrators say.

Okay, that's one way to examine it - but have misbehaviors increased overall since school choice began? Do they continue to increase when new students arrive? It's one thing to show that the non-choice kids (we need a better term for them) are fighting as much as the choice kids, but if the overall level of fighting in the school has risen, well, that doesn't exactly dispel the notion that the choice kids might be a bad influence.

Other school districts also say there's no problem; some have the high standardized test scores to back up at least the claim that choice students haven't hurt schools academically. At some schools, the extra funding from choice students have allowed a vast expansion of the curriculum. But will all this "diversity" have lasting effect, or will we just see another round of "white flight"? It sounds like at least some schools are doing what they can to convince parents that choice students don't necessarily negatively affect a school, and parents have every right to ask for that assurance.

If any of you Michigan parents write in with your experiences, please let me know in your emails if I have your permission to quote your letters.