Do charters serve Denman, Excelsior communities?
Back to the saga of the uprooted and disrupted school communities at James Denman Middle School, Excelsior Middle School and also International Studies Academy High School (which has not really been heard from in our public sphere on this issue).
To recap: Two charter schools are demanding space under their Prop. 39 rights. City Arts & Tech Charter High School, currently renting a non-SFUSD-owned site, will move to share the June Jordan High School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, displacing Excelsior Middle School (SFUSD non-charter), which will move to share the ISA (SFUSD non-charter) facility.
(Why isn't CAT moving to ISA? We unwashed masses don't know, but don't forget that the charter operators have say in the matter and can refuse and negotiate.)
Leadership Charter High School, currently sharing the Burton High School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, will move to share the James Denman Middle School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, of which Denman is currently the sole occupant. It's not publicly known why Leadership can't/won't stay at Burton.
A letter to the editor in today's Chronicle, from someone working for a nonprofit connected with CAT (though she says she works with students from nearby non-charters too), defends the charter schools in the move. (Click and scroll down to see the letter.)
And no, it's not specifically a struggle between charter schools and middle schools, but it is a struggle between charter schools and non-charter public schools. Sorry, but it is. And the charter schools are the aggressors.
In response to the comment that they're teaching the same communities, naturally I had to check the numbers. I looked at CAT, Leadership, Denman, Excelsior, June Jordan, ISA and also Balboa and Burton, as the two other non-charter high schools geographically closest to Denman and Excelsior middle schools.
In general that's kinda-sorta accurate. All are mostly minority to varying degrees. The significant ethnic outlier is CAT, which is 22.6% white (but plurality Latino). Of all the other schools mentioned, Balboa (plurality Chinese) has the highest white percentage at 5.2%. Excelsior (plurality African-American) is 0.5% white and Denman (plurality Latino) is 3.2% white.
All the schools have a significant percentage of free/reduced lunch students. Denman's is 66.3%, Excelsior's is 64.3%, Leadership's is 49.8%, CAT's is 41.6%. So not quite the same communities, but not totally disparate — free/reduced lunch reporting tends to drop off in high school in general.
The really big difference is that the two charters are seriously underserving English language learners, though June Jordan is pretty light there too.
ELL percentages:
CAT 6.9%
Leadership 9.4%
June Jordan 10.2%
Burton 18.5%
Balboa 18.9%
Excelsior 21.8%
Denman 24.3%
ISA 24.9%
The ELL and free/reduced lunch statistics are for 06-07 from the California Department of Education website. The ethnic breakdowns are for 07-08 from the SFUSD website.
To recap: Two charter schools are demanding space under their Prop. 39 rights. City Arts & Tech Charter High School, currently renting a non-SFUSD-owned site, will move to share the June Jordan High School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, displacing Excelsior Middle School (SFUSD non-charter), which will move to share the ISA (SFUSD non-charter) facility.
(Why isn't CAT moving to ISA? We unwashed masses don't know, but don't forget that the charter operators have say in the matter and can refuse and negotiate.)
Leadership Charter High School, currently sharing the Burton High School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, will move to share the James Denman Middle School (SFUSD non-charter) facility, of which Denman is currently the sole occupant. It's not publicly known why Leadership can't/won't stay at Burton.
A letter to the editor in today's Chronicle, from someone working for a nonprofit connected with CAT (though she says she works with students from nearby non-charters too), defends the charter schools in the move. (Click and scroll down to see the letter.)
"It is not a power struggle between charter schools and middle schools," the letter-writer says.So, sit down and shut up? I'm not really sure that's a solution if disadvantaged school communities feel they are being harmed and need to stand up for themselves — and/or others feel we need to speak up on their behalf.
"... The faculties and staff of City Arts and Tech, Leadership, Denman and Excelsior work with the same communities of students and all want the same things for their students. Let us not waste energy in fighting among ourselves."
And no, it's not specifically a struggle between charter schools and middle schools, but it is a struggle between charter schools and non-charter public schools. Sorry, but it is. And the charter schools are the aggressors.
In response to the comment that they're teaching the same communities, naturally I had to check the numbers. I looked at CAT, Leadership, Denman, Excelsior, June Jordan, ISA and also Balboa and Burton, as the two other non-charter high schools geographically closest to Denman and Excelsior middle schools.
In general that's kinda-sorta accurate. All are mostly minority to varying degrees. The significant ethnic outlier is CAT, which is 22.6% white (but plurality Latino). Of all the other schools mentioned, Balboa (plurality Chinese) has the highest white percentage at 5.2%. Excelsior (plurality African-American) is 0.5% white and Denman (plurality Latino) is 3.2% white.
All the schools have a significant percentage of free/reduced lunch students. Denman's is 66.3%, Excelsior's is 64.3%, Leadership's is 49.8%, CAT's is 41.6%. So not quite the same communities, but not totally disparate — free/reduced lunch reporting tends to drop off in high school in general.
The really big difference is that the two charters are seriously underserving English language learners, though June Jordan is pretty light there too.
ELL percentages:
CAT 6.9%
Leadership 9.4%
June Jordan 10.2%
Burton 18.5%
Balboa 18.9%
Excelsior 21.8%
Denman 24.3%
ISA 24.9%
The ELL and free/reduced lunch statistics are for 06-07 from the California Department of Education website. The ethnic breakdowns are for 07-08 from the SFUSD website.
Labels: Charters, SFUSD Politics
25 Comments:
"Why isn't CAT moving to ISA? We unwashed masses don't know, but don't forget that the charter operators have say in the matter and can refuse and negotiate."
This isn't quite accurate. Once the district offers a school to a charter, the district has met its obligation under Prop 39 and has no further obligation to find space for the charter.
If you really must find evildoers here, you should start with the BOE and not the charters, who get just as jerked around by the BOE as the other schools.
I disagree, Anon. The charters have the BOE over a barrel here. They are the aggressors and the perpetrators of this injustice against vulnerable schools. The district handled it badly, but they are coping with the charters' demands, and the charters have all the power.
If charters were required to accept what the district offered, why is Leadership demanding the Denman space when it is currently located in an SFUSD property at Phillip and Sala Burton High School? And why did Envision Schools not accept the SFUSD-owned Gloria R. Davis site in the Bayview for its Metro/MSAT hybrid?
Your claim doesn't wash.
The charters can't "demand" anything, which your illustration seems to support. If Metro didn't accept Gloria R Davis, then why didn't the BOE give them ANOTHER Prop 39 choice? Answer: because they didn't have to!
The BOE did give Envision another choice under Prop. 39, Anon -- Metro/MSAT got the Newcomer High School site, but it's not suitable for long-term occupancy by a school. (It needs millions in Lopez settlement accessibility work.) Envision chose the site despite the fact that it was only suitable for temporary occupancy.
SFUSD has to give charter schools what they want or face big lawsuits.
From the Chronicle article linked to the original blog post:
The district is required under the state's Proposition 39 to provide classroom facilities to charter schools that request space. Charter schools and their advocacy groups have filed lawsuits against school districts that they say don't fulfill the complicated requirements under the law.
San Francisco Unified has been threatened with such suits ...
The Newcomer site isn't under prop 39; Envision is paying rent.
I'm not clear on the financial details, but I'm not sure that Prop. 39 requires the district to provide the space free. The Newcomer site is an SFUSD site, as is the Gloria R. Davis site.
Yes, the Newcomer lease is NOT through prop 39. (I don't think CAT got an acceptable prop 39 location last year either.)
I found some explanation from something called the Charter Schools Development Center,
http://www.cacharterschools.org/Resources/facilities.html
"Though Prop 39 requires that districts provide rent-free facilities, they are permitted to charge specified maintenance fees. SDC has received numerous inquires regarding how to calculate an appropriate fee for charter schools occupying district facilities pursuant to Proposition 39 and related regulatory law. The answer may be a lot more complex than meets the eye."
So, it sounds like Gloria R. Davis was probably offered for those "appropriate fees," but Envision turned it down and chose to pay actual rent for the Newcomer site.
But that was Envision's choice.
So are you saying SFUSD doesn't have to offer Leadership the Denman site since it already has Burton, and could have put CAT on the ISA site, whether they liked it or not?
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like some of this language provides flexibility to the charter operator that allows it to say "nope, that's not the site we want -- give us another one." For example:
# School districts are required to provide facilities that are "reasonably equivalent" to other district facilities - considerations include school site size, the condition of interior and exterior surfaces, condition of mechanical, plumbing, electrical and fire alarm systems, availability and condition of technology infrastructure, suitability of the facility as a learning environment, and the manner in which the facility is furnished and equipped.
...
# The school district must make reasonable efforts to provide facilities near to the charter school's desired location.
You're correct that CAT is in a non-SFUSD building (a Catholic diocese property). So SFUSD did owe it a Prop. 39 site. The question is how much choice in the matter Envision got -- did they refuse space at ISA/Enola Maxwell and demand the Excelsior site instead?
I'm concerned by a number of the comments that Caroline has written.
Here are a few places where your lens is just too out of focus.
1) You write, "The really big difference is that the two charters are seriously underserving English language learners, though June Jordan is pretty light there too."
Is "underserving" a word? Your implication and/or use of the word is wrong non-the-less. CAT does not "underserve" students simply because a group has a low percentage. I think what you mean is that CAT does not serve as many ELL student as other schools. This would be a true fact, if presented this way. Your use of "underserve" implies an injustice or inequity; something CAT and Envision actively work against (it's in their mission statement).
2) You write, "To recap: Two charter schools are demanding space under their Prop. 39 rights." I would argue that "demand" is not a fair word here. Your bias (which you often admit) is inappropriate here. Probably only Envision staff and SFUSD staff know the "real answer" to this. However, submitting a request under a State proposition in a legal manner does not seem to be "demanding." It's following the letter of the law. Further, it would be a stretch to assume that back office deals are made here. It appears that charters submit a letter, as per the law, and then are offered a space, as decided by the SFUSD staff and BOE (some of whom are anti-charter, some whom support charters, and some whom presumably are not ardent in either direction). It is a decision, granted a tough one, that is based on offering space to students who would require space somewhere in the district, no matter what school they're enrolled in.
3) You write, "Why isn't CAT moving to ISA? We unwashed masses don't know." The simple answer to this is "because SFUSD didn't offer it in their Prop 39 Offer to CAT." No more and no less. You should contact your school board reps to ask them personally.
4) In a comment, you respond with, "SFUSD has to give charter schools what they want or face big lawsuits." I'm curious, has any charter operator in San Francisco threatened a lawsuit? If so, which one? You seem to use this argument a lot but cite no evidence that a charter operator in SF has done this. In fact, Metro/Envision is renting space at Newcomer this year rather than locating at GRD. If they were so hot to sue, why didn't they instead of paying higher rent at the Newcomer site?
Your claim doesn't wash.
5) You ask in a comment, "If charters were required to accept what the district offered, why is Leadership demanding the Denman space when it is currently located in an SFUSD property at Phillip and Sala Burton High School?"
How about asking someone instead of being rhetorical? Maybe, just maybe, Burton staff/community have requested the move? Maybe, just maybe, there's not enough room given through the Prop 39 offer. No one knows except for the SFUSD staff and BOE. Ask them. To assume Leadership is the badguy here is to make assumptions simply because you don't support charters.
Caroline and others, this communication snafu is very upsetting and regrettable. SFUSD is scrambling to make the best of it and they know they messed up. But, I think it would be wise for some fact-checking to occur instead making blanket anti-charter comments because they're the easy target.
Caroline, it is ok to not support charters. But to make assumptions based only on your opinions or rhetorical thoughts/wonders doesn't help to shed light on the situation at hand, regardless of your opinion.
"So are you saying SFUSD doesn't have to offer Leadership the Denman site since it already has Burton, and could have put CAT on the ISA site, whether they liked it or not?"
If Leadership already has a prop 39 site (Burton), then the BOE doesn't have to offer them bumpkis. Likewise, if the BOE offered ISA to CAT and CAT refused, then the BOE does not have to look for another site for CAT.
Also, if charters were so anxious to sue the districts, Envision would have sued the Novato school district ages ago for its part in the MSAT fiasco. The truth is, the charters that I know about (and I certainly can't speak for all of them) want to have a good working relationship with the BOE. It's in their best interest too, since they depend on the BOE to renew their charter.
i absolutely agree with this last anon. comment.
IMHO..the 3 charter schools i have been involved in have all tried to have a working relationship with the district; since we all start out as the step-child and need to prove ourselves.
we never "demanded" anything from the districts; but bent overbackwards to make it work....
Some responses:
"I think what you mean is that CAT does not serve as many ELL student as other schools. This would be a true fact, if presented this way. Your use of "underserve" implies an injustice or inequity."
It's my terminology and it's accurate and fair; make of it what you will. I'm not obligated to use puffy words and PR spin that will make charter schools look good.
"I would argue that "demand" is not a fair word here."
I disagree; again, the word is accurate. It's hardly going to hurt you that one little blog counters the massive pro-charter puffery coming out of the Bush administration and the right-wing think tanks.
"It is a decision, granted a tough one, that is based on offering space to students who would require space somewhere in the district, no matter what school they're enrolled in."
Yes, but SFUSD has high schools with room for students. Finding a spot for a whole separate school is another matter entirely.
"You write, "Why isn't CAT moving to ISA? We unwashed masses don't know." The simple answer to this is "because SFUSD didn't offer it in their Prop 39 Offer to CAT." No more and no less. You should contact your school board reps to ask them personally."
Fair enough. But I'm an unpaid volunteer writing based on the information I have, including from the Chronicle coverage.
" In a comment, you respond with, "SFUSD has to give charter schools what they want or face big lawsuits." I'm curious, has any charter operator in San Francisco threatened a lawsuit? "
I have no way of knowing. The Chronicle article emphasized that point, though, and as I've noted, the California Charter Schools Assn. and Green Dot Did sue LAUSD. Obviously that gives sharp teeth to the threat.
" Metro/Envision is renting space at Newcomer this year rather than locating at GRD. If they were so hot to sue, why didn't they instead of paying higher rent at the Newcomer site?"
SFUSD staff have told me that Envision was offered and refused the GRD site.
"5) You ask in a comment, "If charters were required to accept what the district offered, why is Leadership demanding the Denman space when it is currently located in an SFUSD property at Phillip and Sala Burton High School?"
How about asking someone instead of being rhetorical?"
That is what I'm doing.
" to assume Leadership is the badguy here is to make assumptions simply because you don't support charters."
Leadership is inherently in the position of being the bad guy just by dint of its need for space, which leads to disrupting and exploiting a vulnerable school community (Denman). Sorry, but it is what it is.
" Also, if charters were so anxious to sue the districts, Envision would have sued the Novato school district ages ago for its part in the MSAT fiasco."
I can't believe you don't know perfectly well why Envision didn't sue. It's fairly obvious that a lawsuit would have brought out the fact that MSAT collapsed not because of the facilities issue but because it couldn't function without the $800 per student per year additional funding that it previously received, over and above funding that NUSD's other two high schools got, after a new law (SB 319) eliminated that extra subsidy for charter schools.
" the charters that I know about (and I certainly can't speak for all of them) want to have a good working relationship with the BOE. It's in their best interest too, since they depend on the BOE to renew their charter."
I accept that to a reasonable degree, but they are inherently in an adversarial position, because by their very existence they inherently harm the district's other schools and students. And re depending on the BOE to renew the charter -- we've seen the clout the mightily funded charter forces can muster to raise a huge protest if a BOE chooses not to renew a charter. Remember Edison Charter Academy and Urban Pioneer?
ok.. enuf said.
i am sick and tired of hearing your continued comment that MSAT closed due to the $800 per student difference.
MSAT closed because NUSD would not give the school any reasonable space and time ran out.
you have such venom for charter schools that you cannot seem to look a bit deeper @ individual problems schools have!!
But shouldn't MSAT be thanking the students of Novato and San Marin high schools who sacrificed their own resources to subsidize the MSAT students, providing that extra $800 per student per year for the several years until SB319 equalized the funding? And thanking the Novato district itself? Instead, when I've discussed it, the attitude is, "Oh, well, THAT... but let's get back to the horrible injustice NUSD wreaked upon us."
Dear friends,
You will never get into anything other than an anti-charter rant on this blog. I urge you to look elsewhere for actual informed dialog about your options, and stop beating your heads against brick walls...
"it couldn't function without the $800 per student per year additional funding that it previously received"
Couldn't function? I believe MSAT had the resources to function despite whatever funding it did or did not receive from the district.
I would have thought that MSAT would have the resources to function too, because Envision Schools has gotten many millions of dollars from funders such as the Gates Foundation.
But MSAT head Bob Lenz told the Marin Independent-Journal before SB319 took effect that the loss of that extra funding was going to hurt. (I linked to the version of the story elsewhere on this blog.) And the timing of the school's collapse would seem to bear that out -- it was at the end of the very first year without the extra subsidy.
The other thing that raised red flags is just HOW loud a hue and cry Envision kicked up blaming NUSD, including taking out a full-page ad in the Marin I-J. It was so evidently an effort to spin the collapse of the school in some other way, obfuscating the financial issue. (If not, where are the sincere thanks to NUSD and its students for that extra subsidy over the years?)
I feel kind of bad being the Great Satan to folks who are in many ways well-meaning, if (I'm sorry to say) rather honesty-impaired. But this stuff really does do damage to our currently fragile public-school system, while the charter-loving, public-school-hating Bush administration goes mwa-ha-ha.
ok.. i am SO aware that caroline is totally a charter basher..
but i stay on kinda for some back & forth, hoping against all hope that something will crack in her hard little self-satisfied heart ( thank god her kid is @ SOTA.. god forbid she would have to look at a charter school for 'special" education..)
but there are the OTHER blogs that i get the REAL charter school info from!
bye you all.. i gotta go offer my prayers to my right wing republican god.
So since there are some Envision Schools insiders here, may I take the opportunity to ask how Envision came to open its first school in Novato to begin with? Envision's mission, as noted, is to serve children in low-income communities, first in the family to go to college, etc. Novato is a mostly white, upper-middle-class community in Marin County, which is the nation's second- or third-wealthiest county (I think it varies year by year). What was the strategy there?
Also, if as noted MSAT wasn't hurting for money, how WAS it justified accepting that $800 per year subsidy at the expense of all students at Novato and San Marin high schools?
Just to clarify, isn't June Jordan a charter school? Also, Excelsior's enrollment is most likely too low to warrant all the space they have currently; I've walked the halls there and there are quite a few empty classrooms. Also, the district says that part of the reason why Excelsior is moving is partly because of this reason, also it is because they want ISA to become a 6-12 continuum school. These all seems legitimate reasons for the move, none of which are charter related.
Also, I've spoken to many stakeholders in this matter, families, students, staff, and EVERYONE is mostly upset not at the move itself, they are angry at the method of communication from the District (or lack of communication, as it is).
No, June Jordan isn't a charter school.
I understand that most of the complaints have been about the lack of communication, but the move is at the heart of the issue.
I think that in some cases advocates have refrained from addressing the REAL issue (the disruptive demand/need by charter schools for space) so as not to offend people, while focusing on the secondary issue (the lack of communication).
Caroline,
There are the philosophical arguments against charters and then there is reality.
I believe that if your children were less academically or creatively talented and you had been faced with more difficult school choices, your retoric might soften. After a lifetime of going to and working in public schools our family will probably enter the world of charter schools. And once there I will defend and support them as I have our current public schools. I know the public schools have many difficult challenges that make it hard for them to "compete." And I don't ask them to be perfect. But I would like SFUSD to be welcoming, and supportive of the families they serve. It is not unreasonable to expect that if you treat your customers badly they may decide to go elsewhere.
More on topic. The real issue here, as I see it now lies in the mess the district has once again created for itself. SFUSD routinely forgets that it works for students and families not the other way around. Ironically it is just this kind of situation which drives people to the charter schools.
The argument about those bad, bad charters grabbing was one for much earlier in the process when sights were being chosen and Prop 39 was being voted on.
Prop 39 (in the 2000 election) was what cut the mandated majority for passage of a school bond from 2/3 to 55% in California. So obviously it was incredibly important for schools. It also contained the provision that requires school districts to find space for charters even if existing programs must be displaced (I believe that latter part is based on court interpretations after the fact, rather than being explicitly stated in Prop. 39).
So it's technically correct to say we made our bed and now we have to lie in it. Of course, it wasn't clear how much damage that would do to existing school communities until the damage started occurring.
It does exacerbate an extremely adversarial relationship between charters and school districts; between charters and non-charter schools.
Post a Comment
<< Home