Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a teacher at a public charter school here in Philadelphia. This is my first year teaching in the city and it is certainly a different and more challenging experience than where I taught for my first two years in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have interesting conversations with my colleagues about the reputation and actual quality of education that public charter schools provide in the city.
Now, it would be foolish to lump all of the public charter schools together. There are some like Belmont Charter Schools that are turn-around schools with more of a "whole child" approach to education. The ones I want to specifically focus on are schools like Mastery, Independence Charter, KIPP and Philadelphia Academy Charter which have a more "data-focused" (some may read: standardized test score-focused) approach and/or have achieved relatively high marks in standardized testing.
So my inquiry follows: Would you send your child to one or more of the charter networks I listed? What is your perception of these schools? What do you think about the city-wide reputation of all or any of these schools? I am asking specifically about K-8, as that is my area of my profession and expertise.
I am a teacher at a public charter school here in Philadelphia. This is my first year teaching in the city and it is certainly a different and more challenging experience than where I taught for my first two years in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have interesting conversations with my colleagues about the reputation and actual quality of education that public charter schools provide in the city.
Now, it would be foolish to lump all of the public charter schools together. There are some like Belmont Charter Schools that are turn-around schools with more of a "whole child" approach to education. The ones I want to specifically focus on are schools like Mastery, Independence Charter, KIPP and Philadelphia Academy Charter which have a more "data-focused" (some may read: standardized test score-focused) approach and/or have achieved relatively high marks in standardized testing.
So my inquiry follows: Would you send your child to one or more of the charter networks I listed? What is your perception of these schools? What do you think about the city-wide reputation of all or any of these schools? I am asking specifically about K-8, as that is my area of my profession and expertise.
First, I should note that I neither have nor plan to have children, but as schools are a big concern for anyone looking to buy a home, I take a keener interest in the subject than someone in my position would ordinarily take.
Funny you should raise this subject. I've got a discussion going on on my Facebook profile that has veered off into the subject of schools (it started out as a discussion of an article in the current Atlantic that argues that the 10 percent, not just the 1, are busy creating an aristocracy in this country), and Mastery entered into it (at my own instigation).
I don't know about Independence or Philadelphia Academy except hearing that huge numbers of parents enter the lottery to get their kids into the former, but I have heard (and read a little) about the academic model both Mastery and KIPP schools follow, which is known as "no excuses."
The neighborhood school in the next block east of mine, Francis Pastorius, was taken over by Mastery Schools three years ago. The head of the Philadelphia Children's Fund, who is a charter school supporter, told this tale to the audience at Philadelphia magazine's* "ThinkFest," a TED-style symposium, after the takeover:
The new management called a meeting for Pastorius parents to answer their questions about what was going to happen at the school. One parent in attendance asked if the school's current teachers were going to remain. The manager said that they had offered the teachers contracts to remain at Pastorius under Mastery management, but that most had opted to leave.
The room, this guy said, broke out into applause.
It seems to me that the "no excuses" model should be a highly effective one: it combines high expectations and a college-prep curriculum for every student with a rigorous schedule and strict discipline. The data I've seen on KIPP schools bears this out so far, and (Germantown-based) Mastery's website has some impressive numbers on it too.
I understand that this model is popular among African-American parents, who have been shortchanged by their local schools for long enough that they probably welcome the attention promised their children by the "no excuses" school operators (and who tend to take more of a disciplinarian approach to raising their children anyway).
I'm a little more touchy-feely, but I'd be willing to send my kid to one of these schools if I had a kid.
But since you're in the trenches, I'd also like to hear your take on the various models and what you see as their strengths and weaknesses. I'd also be interested in your views on how the schools are perceived vs. how they actually operate; I have a mental file in which I file anecdotes from parents of children in regular public schools other than the sought-after ones labeled "The public schools aren't as bad as everyone says they are" - and I started a thread myself dealing with school quality in the city and perceptions of same ("'There are no good schools in the city.'" - the thread title comes from a blanket statement one participant in that thread made on another thread started by someone moving here from Dallas who sought advice on where to live).
*I am a member of the magazine's editorial staff; my job title is Home & Real Estate Editor, hence my interest in the subject.
As much as many people detest standardized testing, the whole world is built on such a system of education. For those who don't excel in test scores, they need to excel in something else to make up for their grades. But they still have to get decent grades nonetheless.
Bad grades in many cases are symptomatic of other issues and should not be confused for intelligence. Most students fail because of indiscipline, poor work ethic, etc. So if they can't do well in school, how will they do well in life?
I would dare say the more under-privileged a student, the more excellent grades matter. Otherwise one ends up in low paying low skills jobs which are now getting automated thanks to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence.
One can argue all day and night about whole child education but at the end of their education the students will have to face the reality of life. Good grades is the best way to break the cycle of indignity and poverty in the city.
I know nothing about the charter schools you've mentioned but I'm for data focused charter schools, especially if they are catering for under-privileged students.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muinteoir
Hey all,
I am a teacher at a public charter school here in Philadelphia. This is my first year teaching in the city and it is certainly a different and more challenging experience than where I taught for my first two years in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have interesting conversations with my colleagues about the reputation and actual quality of education that public charter schools provide in the city.
Now, it would be foolish to lump all of the public charter schools together. There are some like Belmont Charter Schools that are turn-around schools with more of a "whole child" approach to education. The ones I want to specifically focus on are schools like Mastery, Independence Charter, KIPP and Philadelphia Academy Charter which have a more "data-focused" (some may read: standardized test score-focused) approach and/or have achieved relatively high marks in standardized testing.
So my inquiry follows: Would you send your child to one or more of the charter networks I listed? What is your perception of these schools? What do you think about the city-wide reputation of all or any of these schools? I am asking specifically about K-8, as that is my area of my profession and expertise.
I am a teacher at a public charter school here in Philadelphia. This is my first year teaching in the city and it is certainly a different and more challenging experience than where I taught for my first two years in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have interesting conversations with my colleagues about the reputation and actual quality of education that public charter schools provide in the city.
Now, it would be foolish to lump all of the public charter schools together. There are some like Belmont Charter Schools that are turn-around schools with more of a "whole child" approach to education. The ones I want to specifically focus on are schools like Mastery, Independence Charter, KIPP and Philadelphia Academy Charter which have a more "data-focused" (some may read: standardized test score-focused) approach and/or have achieved relatively high marks in standardized testing.
So my inquiry follows: Would you send your child to one or more of the charter networks I listed? What is your perception of these schools? What do you think about the city-wide reputation of all or any of these schools? I am asking specifically about K-8, as that is my area of my profession and expertise.
I tend to be more fluid with HS, but do have significant experience in the education field.
I know that most charter schools tend to overwork their teachers, but the quality overall tends to be good for the student and community/communities served. If I felt I needed a rigorous, disciplined school for my child(ren), then I'd consider charter. If I had a choice as to which charter they ended up in, I'd look into the activities and program that they could offer my child.
Mastery and KIPP have good reputations in this area for attempting to turn around otherwise underprivileged students, and ASPIRA has great marks as well environmentally in my opinion. I'm not sure on their marks per se and what they had to work with 100% as a whole.
ASPIRA has the option for you to go cyber, at least for HS and maybe MS too if the school you're at doesn't work out. The teachers hired for ASPIRA must be bilingual in both Spanish and English I think- so that kind of tells you something about their K-8 schools.
If a school works with ASAP (ASAP After School Activities Partnerships), then they have something going for them too. If your child is interested in chess, Scrabble, debate, or drama, then this is a big factor for you that you should look in to.
At one time, there was a charter school that morphed into a cyber-charter hybrid model. It was ashame it didn't survive partially due to the state government funding hiccup in 2015, but it served its population super well and significantly help change some children's lives positively in small group environments.
Otherwise, I'd probably rather stick with public school or consider cyber school as an option personally.
Aspira is a train wreck. Check a recent report from the state auditor general.
KIPP and Mastery are better run but their marketing efforts are probably stronger than their educational programs. Mastery hires people to recruit attendees to these takeover meetings, which is probably why a previous poster referenced applause at one of them.
As far as whether you would send your kids, ask the CEO's of these chains. I know one in Philly who sent his kids to private school then a public magnet school, and I'm sure he's not alone.
But since you're in the trenches, I'd also like to hear your take on the various models and what you see as their strengths and weaknesses. I'd also be interested in your views on how the schools are perceived vs. how they actually operate
I think the schools have a mixed perception in the city. For the population they mainly serve, I think the perception is that they are overall a better to somewhat better option than district schools. I think most who submit to the lottery are attracted to the schools' missions of college acceptance and graduation for their students. I think for some in "more progressive" circles or for those who have some affinity for district schools (be it because of employment, alum(a) status, historical attachment, etc.), they see charter schools as drains on district school funds, corruptly operated (especially in light of some charter CEOs embezzling school funds), manipulative of student data, etc.
Having worked at solely charter schools, one with a "whole child" approach and now one with a "data-driven" approach, and a mother who is a school superintendent of a rural district in New York State, who battles overzealous union leaders, I have come to really see the pros and cons of both district and charter, both "whole child" and "data-driven" approaches.
Firstly, I'd say data-driven charter schools have a disproportionate number of young, highly motivated teacher who are willing to put in upwards of 60 hours a week to serve their students. These teachers analyze data, create data-responsive lesson plans and small groups, create materials that enhance student learning, and internalize research-based curriculum while students are not actually in class. At my charter school, we are given two hours of prep a week in our 9-10 (depending on after school meetings/professional developments) to complete all of these tasks and more. That is where the "upwards of 60 hours" comes from. Teachers are also heavily "coached" on their instruction. This coaching includes watching videos/live modeling of best teaching practices, "live coaching" during instruction to immediately improve instruction in-the-moment, and weekly meetings to discuss the teacher's instruction. All this in classrooms where many students have severe social-emotional challenges, have suffered from trauma, and are sometimes outright unsafe in conduct.
The obvious benefit of this approach is that students generally receive much higher quality education than they would at district schools. Students at these schools on average do have better chances at college graduation, and these chances truly start day 1 in Kindergarten, as hard as that is to imagine.
The disadvantages include teacher burnout, low retention and on-the-job fatigue. I point this out not simply for some pity of charter teachers. Instead, I do because research shows that students benefit from teachers with more experience and who are simply happy and genuine while teaching. It took me about half the year to figure out how to balance all of my weekly tasks, use many of the "best teaching practices" effectively in my classroom, all while maintaining some semblance of life outside work and integrity to my own character as a teacher. This is important because it raises questions about charter model sustainability, the effectiveness of young, inexperienced yet hardworking and intelligent teachers, and how teachers can balance best teaching practices while remaining genuine in the face of their students (which, I will tell you, the toughest students can smell BS half a mile away. Philly of course has plenty of tough students).
Beyond inexperienced teachers, administrators also tend to be younger and less experienced. While hardworking and well intentioned, many have trouble holding teachers accountable to their idea of "high standards" coupled with a positive work/school/learning environment. Because these schools are not unionized, there is less buffer between what management can ask of teachers and what actually must be done to maintain your job. Again, the advantages are obvious: teachers can be more easily held accountable to do high quality teaching. The disadvantages are toxic work environments from overwork and mistrust of inexperienced management decision making.
It really is a fascinating topic, a topic I'd one day love to research and write about. I've really only scratched the surface here.
I will love to elaborate more on my thoughts regarding data-driven and whole-child approaches sometime, but for now I must get off City-Data.
I teach for a high-performing, independent charter school here in the city. I can tell you the pay is not as good as the district, but the working conditions are light-years ahead of what the public school offers. Discipline and routines are highly enforced, and when you have strict (and fair) discipline, everything else follows. Having a disciplined school leads to far less teacher stress and burnout. I'm also not sure about teacher experience levels in charter schools, as the one I work for has a majority of teachers that have been in the game for 10 years or more. I'm in my fourth year teaching, and I am the second least experienced person on staff. It could be different in other schools, but teacher inexperience is definitely not true for us.
Our school retains quality teachers because we are well run, specialize in certain areas that you can't find anywhere else, and truly live the mission that our school was founded on. You don't find many schools like that anywhere, in the city or the suburbs.
Aspira is a train wreck. Check a recent report from the state auditor general.
KIPP and Mastery are better run but their marketing efforts are probably stronger than their educational programs. Mastery hires people to recruit attendees to these takeover meetings, which is probably why a previous poster referenced applause at one of them.
As far as whether you would send your kids, ask the CEO's of these chains. I know one in Philly who sent his kids to private school then a public magnet school, and I'm sure he's not alone.
PA’s charter laws are intentionally designed to make meaningful oversight impossible. Aspira is simply using the charter laws as intended. They’re grifting. Dwight Evans put plenty of effort into writing that statute. You can’t deny Aspira the right to rip off the public. /s
Mastery doesn’t just hire people to recruit. The people they hire hand out gift cards like candy and they spend tens of thousands of dollars on dinners for the families they’re recruting to their schools. Your tax dollars “at work”.
Of course Gordon sent his his kids to Friends Central. The white people who bankroll and for the most run no excuses charters would no sooner send their kids to a no excuses charter as they would have them forego college and enlist in the military. No excuses charters are for other people’s (black) children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muinteoir
I think the schools have a mixed perception in the city. For the population they mainly serve, I think the perception is that they are overall a better to somewhat better option than district schools. I think most who submit to the lottery are attracted to the schools' missions of college acceptance and graduation for their students. I think for some in "more progressive" circles or for those who have some affinity for district schools (be it because of employment, alum(a) status, historical attachment, etc.), they see charter schools as drains on district school funds, corruptly operated (especially in light of some charter CEOs embezzling school funds), manipulative of student data, etc.
Having worked at solely charter schools, one with a "whole child" approach and now one with a "data-driven" approach, and a mother who is a school superintendent of a rural district in New York State, who battles overzealous union leaders, I have come to really see the pros and cons of both district and charter, both "whole child" and "data-driven" approaches.
Firstly, I'd say data-driven charter schools have a disproportionate number of young, highly motivated teacher who are willing to put in upwards of 60 hours a week to serve their students. These teachers analyze data, create data-responsive lesson plans and small groups, create materials that enhance student learning, and internalize research-based curriculum while students are not actually in class. At my charter school, we are given two hours of prep a week in our 9-10 (depending on after school meetings/professional developments) to complete all of these tasks and more. That is where the "upwards of 60 hours" comes from. Teachers are also heavily "coached" on their instruction. This coaching includes watching videos/live modeling of best teaching practices, "live coaching" during instruction to immediately improve instruction in-the-moment, and weekly meetings to discuss the teacher's instruction. All this in classrooms where many students have severe social-emotional challenges, have suffered from trauma, and are sometimes outright unsafe in conduct.
The obvious benefit of this approach is that students generally receive much higher quality education than they would at district schools. Students at these schools on average do have better chances at college graduation, and these chances truly start day 1 in Kindergarten, as hard as that is to imagine.
The disadvantages include teacher burnout, low retention and on-the-job fatigue. I point this out not simply for some pity of charter teachers. Instead, I do because research shows that students benefit from teachers with more experience and who are simply happy and genuine while teaching. It took me about half the year to figure out how to balance all of my weekly tasks, use many of the "best teaching practices" effectively in my classroom, all while maintaining some semblance of life outside work and integrity to my own character as a teacher. This is important because it raises questions about charter model sustainability, the effectiveness of young, inexperienced yet hardworking and intelligent teachers, and how teachers can balance best teaching practices while remaining genuine in the face of their students (which, I will tell you, the toughest students can smell BS half a mile away. Philly of course has plenty of tough students).
Beyond inexperienced teachers, administrators also tend to be younger and less experienced. While hardworking and well intentioned, many have trouble holding teachers accountable to their idea of "high standards" coupled with a positive work/school/learning environment. Because these schools are not unionized, there is less buffer between what management can ask of teachers and what actually must be done to maintain your job. Again, the advantages are obvious: teachers can be more easily held accountable to do high quality teaching. The disadvantages are toxic work environments from overwork and mistrust of inexperienced management decision making.
It really is a fascinating topic, a topic I'd one day love to research and write about. I've really only scratched the surface here.
I will love to elaborate more on my thoughts regarding data-driven and whole-child approaches sometime, but for now I must get off City-Data.
Jesus that is an enormous number of words to express nothing. The charter model is about privatizing education, killing teacher unions and rewarding donors. Those have been the explicit goals of PA’s legislature since the charter law was passed more than twenty years ago. It’s been a joint effort between Philly Democrats and Republicans from the the rest of the state from day one. The law is written to enable using charters to funnel patronage dollars in a way that isn’t possible in public schools, run a legal grift and kill off teacher unions which support Ds. If the Republicans had gotten their way the entire school district would have been given to Edison eighteen years ago. Let me know when charters stop cream skimming and literally stealing from the state where sped is concerned.
Let me guess. You consider yourself a progressive.
Last edited by BR Valentine; 05-30-2018 at 09:01 AM..
Aspira is a train wreck. Check a recent report from the state auditor general.
KIPP and Mastery are better run but their marketing efforts are probably stronger than their educational programs. Mastery hires people to recruit attendees to these takeover meetings, which is probably why a previous poster referenced applause at one of them.
As far as whether you would send your kids, ask the CEO's of these chains. I know one in Philly who sent his kids to private school then a public magnet school, and I'm sure he's not alone.
Thank you for sharing that. This article focuses on the way administration is running the schools. It doesn't really tell the stories of the students, communities, and how the staff are positively impacting the community there overall.
There is definitely/was an admin/staff conflict and it looks like the way the schools are being run shows that. At least one of the schools is now unionized. I'm sure it's probably more complicated than that. I can definitely say that Aspira's presence in these areas now is much better than the former predecessors for these particular areas and communities culturally and probably academically as well. I can't necessarily say the same for the staff or admin who work there though.
As to public magnet schools, not all public magnets are truly "magnet" either. So, to send a kid to private instead of certain public "magnets" is certainly understandable if you have the option to do so.
I teach for a high-performing, independent charter school here in the city. I can tell you the pay is not as good as the district, but the working conditions are light-years ahead of what the public school offers. Discipline and routines are highly enforced, and when you have strict (and fair) discipline, everything else follows. Having a disciplined school leads to far less teacher stress and burnout. I'm also not sure about teacher experience levels in charter schools, as the one I work for has a majority of teachers that have been in the game for 10 years or more. I'm in my fourth year teaching, and I am the second least experienced person on staff. It could be different in other schools, but teacher inexperience is definitely not true for us.
Our school retains quality teachers because we are well run, specialize in certain areas that you can't find anywhere else, and truly live the mission that our school was founded on. You don't find many schools like that anywhere, in the city or the suburbs.
Charters vary but many tend to hire less experienced teachers because they are cheaper. Also, administrators tend to be paid less and sometimes even not qualified at all.
Sounds like you are in a well run charter school. I'm kind of lucky to have had that experience except that the school I was at chose some of the wrong people, and had a working alternative model that was not approved and did not work with the state. Hence, no more school
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mainstream Philly area charter schools
Ve
