The Chutzpah of the Rutgers Anti-Charter Trio: "We'll Tell You What's Right for Your Kid"

On Saturday the Star-Ledger published a lengthy editorial-cum-analysis on the pushback in New Jersey against high-performing charter schools, specifically KIPP NJ, which runs schools in Newark and Camden. Reaction was fierce: both Bruce Baker and Mark Weber of Rutgers railed against the analysis, which was based on data from the non-profit Mathematica. (Typical comments: the writer, Julie O’Connor, was “in the tank for KIPP" (Weber) and "willfully ignorant" (Baker);  readers’ reactions were far more balanced.)

Here are some of the data:
-- There are 10,000 students on KIPP NJ waiting lists.
- In KIPP’s Newark schools, elementary and high schools equal or outperform the average for the state of New Jersey, even though the students are much poorer.
- They close the achievement gap and surpass national averages in reading and math by 8th grade.
- 88 percent receive free or reduced meals, a measure of poverty. In Newark district schools, it's 85 percent.
- 92 percent are African American
- 95 percent of seniors went to college last year- When KIPP's founding class of students finished fourth grade, they scored better in math than 70 percent of kids in the nation, and better in reading than 61 percent.
From a school board member’s perspective, one of the more interesting items was the regulatory flexibility within charters. Unbound by teacher tenure laws and state bidding procedures, the article describes how KIPP is able to spend far more of its per pupil money on classroom instruction.
Spark [a KIPP school] gets $17,000 per student from the state, and a typical district elementary school gets at least $18,000. Not a huge difference. But of that amount, Spark has significantly more money under the direct control of its principal, for teachers and other classroom costs: $14,000, as compared to the district's $8,000.
The extra $6,000 helps pay for KIPP's extra resources, like two teachers in a classroom, while the central district is paying for an overfed bureaucracy.
And,
To understand how charters benefit from less regulation, consider the infamous story about the air conditioners at George Washington Carver, one of the lowest-performing schools in the district, which shared a building with a KIPP charter school, Spark.
When Spark ordered units for its classrooms, it caused some resentment downstairs, so KIPP's board chipped in to buy them for Carver, too. Yet while KIPP paid $400 apiece to buy and install its own units, it had to pay more than $700 for the district's, not including installation, and they took an entire year to put in.
O’Connor contacted Rutgers professor Julia Sass Rubin, founder of Princeton-based Save Our Schools-NJ. (Suddenly Rutgers is the hotbed of anti-charter activism. What's up with that?) Anyway, SOS has been lobbying hard for a charter moratorium bill sponsored by Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan.
Julia Sass Rubin, founder of the activist group Save Our Schools, argues district schools shouldn't ever be shut down or replaced, no matter how bad their test scores may be. She says she can't imagine the state closing schools in places like Princeton or Montclair, so it shouldn't happen in Newark or Camden, either.
"Who gets to decide that it's ok to override the local community because we think their schools are not good?" she said. "I don't think it's clear what a good school is. Low-income students generally don't score well on standardized tests. Neighborhood schools provide stability; they have teachers who are there for many years. I would never presume to tell a parent, 'You don't know what's right for your kid.'"
The irony is that Rubin's group is pushing for new restrictions on expanding or opening charter schools, a move that would deny options to the thousands on waiting lists.
 A reader commented,
Julia Sass Rubin, founder of the activist group Save Our Schools, argues district schools shouldn't ever be shut down or replaced, no matter how bad their test scores may be.--article
Perhaps Ms.Rubin should be "forced" to send her child to one of "those schools" no matter how bad they may be
Who gets to decide that it's ok to override the local community because we think their schools are not good?"---Rubin
Answer: Parents  decide whether a particular school or district does not,can not,or will not be suitable for their children's "education". Evidently some in the "local community" who would never presume to tell a parent "You don't know whats right for your kid" make that decision
I would never presume to tell a parent, 'You don't know what's right for your kid.'" --Rubin
However this person would use force [law] to restrict parents ability to exercise  choice in their children's education.
The reader is correct. Parents should get to choose, not Princeton lobbyists with the financial means to "buy into" high-performing districts or state representatives of suburban districts with great schools who want the right tell parents in Newark and Camden that "you don't know what's right for your kid." Talk about chutzpah. 

Labels: , , , ,