This afternoon, the Charter Schools Institute of SUNY presented its renewal recommendation for the UFT Charter School.* The recommendation is for a short-term renewal (three years instead of the maximum five).† The school failed to achieve a full-term recommendation because it did not have a compelling and consistent record of meeting its academic achievement goals.† Instead, its outcomes were mixed.
Great charter schools can go beyond their students to improve the education landscape for everyone. That’s why we say this movement is not about a particular kind of governance structure, it’s about great public schools.
The spill-over benefits from charter schools often involve innovation and sharing, but old-fashioned competition also has its place.
In the space of a week, three major magazines have turned their focus to the revolution happening in public school teaching.
Saturday's New York Times reported on the curious case of State Senator Bill Perkins, who “wars against” charter schools despite representing so many of them--and despite having benefited from educational choice himself.
There’s one burning question that has hung around NYC’s charter schools debate for years: what amount of public resources do charters have to work with, compared to district schools? Are they doing more with less, or taking more than their share? The question is enormously important for questions about fairness as well as cost-effectiveness.
Since school funding is so complicated, however, developing numbers with any rigor is a huge jobóand anyone motivated enough to try is probably an advocate of some kind. So the whole debate has been stuck in the mud of he-said, she-said.
Monday we blogged about the UFT’s selective outrage over enrollment differences: somehow they never get around to protesting in TriBeCa. This morning’s Daily News reports that the union also ignores differences at its own charter school: