RP: Both teacher and learner have to see value in education for it to be a meaningful enterprise. That’s inherent the charter school formula, I believe.

NF: Not always. Further–kids who see no value in education have always been with us, and are a far greater threat to socio-economic stability now than they’ve ever been. Unless someone is willing to take on the challenge of working with disaffected, even hostile, kids, we’re in serious trouble. I’m no Pollyanna–I’ve had my share of kids who could not be reached, despite the efforts of many excellent and caring teachers. But isolating them in dumping-ground public schools–especially early in the school game–or giving up the quest to find ways to (ahem) leave no child behind is morally repugnant.

RP: Motivation makes a difference. Sadly, that is not always the case in public schools.

NF: Motivation is present–and absent–in both charter and public schools. Instead of trying to sort schools into “schools where kids and parents care” and “schools where everyone else goes,” perhaps we should focus our resources on why some kids find school a gigantic waste of time. Charter schools were initially conceived as places where there were no bureaucratic constraints–where unique populations could be well-served, and innovation could flourish. The fact that they have become, as Rachel says, life boats for the kids whose parents are motivated and savvy enough to take advantage of them probably says more about race and class than the success of one schooling model over another.

RP: Do we label them successful because they pass a dumbed-down state reading test, declare victory and pride ourselves on a job well done? How much talent have we wasted, what accomplishments have we quashed — what future doctors and lawyers did we turn into orderlies and receptionists– by undereducating them? Do they not deserve the best possible academic environment we can provide?

NF: As the daughter of a receptionist and a truck driver, I’m wondering who, exactly, is supposed to take these jobs and do them with the pride in honest work that my parents advocated?

As for dumbed-down tests, I can only speak about the statewide assessments in Michigan, which used to be performance assessments (essays, constructed responses in math, science labs) tightly linked to rigorous curriculum benchmarks, but have become much LESS useful multiple-choice tests due to the constraints of NCLB. High school exit exams were scrapped completely (too expensive) in favor of the ACT, which has no links to curriculum benchmarks. So–who’s dumbing who?

Finally, I believe every child, including kids who have no parent support and come to school dirty, unprepared and belligerent deserve the best education we can give them, too. In fact, booting out kids who resist our efforts to teach them represents another kind of excuse making.

Hope that helps.

Wasn’t it your old pal Al Shanker who first proposed charter schools sometime toward the end of the last century? I’d certainly like to get his take on them now. I’m sure he could fill a “Where We Stand” column or two on the merits/pitfalls of his grand scheme.

I’d also like to hear again from James Coleman on this experiment. I’m sure he’d have a social policy study or two to report on regarding these alternative public schools.

On the other hand, why do we focus on one aspect of governance? We could compare schools by size, or by length of school day, or by curricular approach (e.g., Core Knowledge vs. other schools).

I think the Boston results are interesting — and may be highlighting some uncomfortable truths about education. But I think that assuming that the lesson to learn from it is that there should be more charters ignores some of the unintended, and mostly hidden, consequences of creating a public school system with significant capacity for self-segregation.

But it seems to me the logical extension of this is an educational system tracked by student effort and parental engagement. I think most people would be pretty appalled if a school district said “we have school A for students whose parents commit to 5 hours a month of volunteers service, and who have fewer than 2 unexcused absences a year, and school B for students whose parents can commit to 2 hours a month of volunteer service and who have fewer than 5 unexcused absences in a year, and school C for everyone else.” But if school A and B are charters, it’s somehow okay.

I think part of the reason is that when school districts tracked students — nominally by “ability” but often effectively by student effort and parental engagement — the race and class correlations were clear. But when you look at primarily minority communities it’s easy to lose sight of the fact building life boats for a one group of kids often comes at the expense of the kids who don’t get a place in the life boat, because the race and class distinctions between the kids in the life boats and the kids who are drowning aren’t as obvious.

But in our area — and I suspect many others — there are a lot of charter school that don’t look at all like KIPP. They are predominantly white and middle class (in the one in our neighborhood over half of the parents have graduate degrees). They provide wonderful, supportive environments for their students — usually shielded from any of the unpleasant effects of NCLB — but they also promote de facto segregation.

I’m not suggesting it’s impossible for high expectations and tough standards to exist in a public school. But I am suggesting it’s very hard for them to exist in the absence of shared buy-in, of mutual accountability. If the student doesn’t see his or her education as a means to any valuable end, if there is no consequence — or concern for future consequence, lack of opportunity, etc. — then it’s hard for high expectations to be anything other than another empty slogan. Both teacher and learner have to see value in education for it to be a meaningful enterprise. That’s inherent the charter school formula, I believe. Education is compulsory; charter education is not. That means someone voted with their feet and said, “I want this. I value this. I raised my hand and asked for it.” And I personally believe they should have the opportunity to seek out and pursue the best possible outcome. Motivation makes a difference. Sadly, that is not always the case in public schools. And while I think talented educators can certainly be difference makers in motivating the recalcitrant student, it is simply too much to expect that to happen in every single instance, without fail.

And of course we should be concerned with the children who are not “down with the program,” Nancy. But the ones who haunt me at night are not the ones I failed to win over. It’s the ones who walked in sold but were underserved. Struggling schools are filled with the children of families who buy what we sell, who sit at their desks, cheerful, compliant, helpful, while we try to get the unmotivated “down with the program.” Do we label them successful because they pass a dumbed-down state reading test, declare victory and pride ourselves on a job well done? How much talent have we wasted, what accomplishments have we quashed — what future doctors and lawyers did we turn into orderlies and receptionists– by undereducating them? What is the impact of that unrealized potential on society? Do they not deserve the best possible academic environment we can provide? And if we can’t provide it, don’t we have an obligation to let them find it where they may? I can’t in good conscience say no.

What kinds of excuse-making is not accepted? Are we talking zero tolerance for behavioral infractions? That’s a different mission than booting kids who consistently fail to do their work. What is the impact of a “no excuses” policy on the homeless or sketchily parented child who has to get himself to third grade? And why do you believe that high expectations and tough standards can’t take root in public schools? What is there about public funding or public school policy that makes it impossible to run a tight ship, both academically and behaviorally –if that’s what “no excuses” means?

What is the opposite of a “no excuses” school–public, charter or otherwise?

What happens to children who are expelled when we don’t allow second chances? Where do the kids who are not “down with the program” go–and what impact does an increasing number of them have on society? Should we care about all of this?

One of my ironclad articles of faith is that a first-rate academic environment (read: engaged, non-disruptive) is a pre-condition of first-rate academic performance. Thus, like you, I assume the classroom environment borne of self-selection, and regulated by the ability to counsel out or expel of students who are not down with the program is a huge factor in charter success. In short, charters spend more time teaching and less time selling.

Now there are those who will look at that and say “you can’t replicate those conditions in public schools.” I completely agree. And that’s why I think charters are essential.

It would be my guess that charter schools students would be less likely to disrupt the classroom, more likely to do their homework, and more likely to have parents who are involved in their education. From my experience teaching in both public and private schools (and classes ranging from honors to special education), most students learn better if they are in classes with other well-behaved students who are on-task. Teachers can focus on teaching, and spend less time dealing with behavior problems. The question is: How can we replicate this environment in the public schools – and would we want to?