The Charter School- My Position

Summary: In which Menin restates his position on the River Valley Charter School.

Some history and reality: Different kids learn in different ways. They take in information differently, process it differently; they develop the ability to think and be social in highly individualized ways. One size doesn't fit all.

The ability of a public school district to individualize and approach teaching students creatively really comes down to two things: money, and leadership. Well, there actually is a third factor- the ability to think and act outside the box. You can't just have two; you need all three.

The Charter School movement, to the extent that I understand the history, was the result of the confluence of two major tides in American thinking. The first was the recognition that many districts were not meeting the needs of the poorest, most challenged students; they were not adapting to the urban reality that in some neighborhoods, you can't do your homework when there are gunshots outside your window; you can't rely on parental support when the parent is a single mom working two jobs to put food on the table. Schools were simply not offering enough choices to students.

The second was the conservative movement towards privatization. When it became clear that school vouchers was a non-starter, the movement backed the Charter Schools idea. It was predicated on an overt agenda that competition is good, regardless of the market, and I believe a more subtle interest in stepping control of Schools away from elected boards representing the whole city, and into private boards, while still using state funds. Massachusetts codified the Charter School concept in 1993; and in hindsight there were two key elements that would prove to be divisive and noxious to the overall debate about best practices in education.

The first was that the funding for Charter Schools came right out of the Chapter 70 allotment for each host community. Since the Charter's students going out of Newburyport were funded at twice the amount of choice students coming in (the rationale was that unlike the public district, which owns it's buildings, Charter's had to assume capital and rental costs) , it caused an immediate impact locally to the school budget. For a while, the state gradually eased the money transition, but eventually, the stark reality set in. Had the funding for the Charter schools been a separate line item in the budget, and not funded through the reduction of Chapter 70 aid to public districts, a great deal of the tension would have been relieved.

The second was that a key line in legislation spoke about Charter Schools as being in "competition" with host public district schools, when it probably should have said "collaboration." Even legislation author Mark Roosevelt concedes the phrase did not capture the spirit of the legislative intent.

In Newburyport, the Charter school was founded by a group of parents who had long lobbied the School District for significant changes in the curriculum, teaching methodology and use of "best practices." These interests were longtime concerns; at the time I don't know if the School Committee considered trying to address these concerns by exploring the creation of a Horace Mann Charter School- a charter that is overseen by the School Committee.

As an institution, with a publicly elected body, the public district was unable to address the issues presented by the parents in a timely fashion; the decision by the parents to use the Charter School legislation, with it's favorable language, was taken very personally by the sitting School Committee and the community. It was one of the early Charter Schools outside of an urban setting.

Shortly after I was first elected in 2000, I became the first member of the School Committee to visit the Charter School, and worked for years to find some common ground for dialogue between the public district and Charter folks. Actually, I worked with Senator Baddour to try to find a way to get everyone to the table. Some fitful efforts were made, which resulted in a joint letter to the legislature saying there should be more funding for all elements in the educational system.

I believe that every school should have the resources and the flexibility to meet students where they are, to provide challenges and supports in appropriate measures.

I believe that one way to assess the degree to which a student has mastered skills is for them to present, or exhibit those skills, and not only through testing.

As a trained Montessori teacher, I believe that there are three year developmental periods between the ages of 0-21; that an individualized and well thought out program can be delivered through the greater use of multi-age classrooms.

Newburyport lacked the resources, leadership and momentum to do these things. More than that, the School Committee was wedded to an approach to education that was traditional, slow to innovate, and increasingly oriented towards teaching to the middle.

I understand the motivation of the Charter School parents.

I wish, and would advocate that Charter School funding be detached from what is a direct loss of Chapter 70 funds at a rate disproportionate to what Newburyport receives, to a separate line item in the state budget, with a separate funding mechanism.

The Charter school is real, and it isn't going away. I prefer to deal with, and make the best of reality. I believe that there is much we can learn from their efforts to date, and there are probably ways in which we can achieve some economic efficiencies by working together. I believe we can share "best practices" with each other, do joint training of staff, and perhaps even cross-offer Explores for the middle school-aged kids.

I wish there hadn't been an urgency on the part of the founding parents to create the school. However, I can also see, based on joining the School Committee shortly after the River Valley opened, that there was no way in hell a dialogue between the School Committee and Administration and the Charter advocates was possible; the atmosphere was poisonous and venomous.

That was a long time ago. Dale Bishop and Kevin Lyon have professional history with one another, which bodes well. I support a stepped-up conversation about education between the two of us; I support finding common ground and working towards a relationship that benefits both groups.

As the financial crisis eases over the coming years, I would like to have the School Committee consider opening a Horace Mann Charter School that has a focus on the arts or math/sciences. That is one of the reasons I have strongly advocated that the City retain control of the Kelley School; the building modifications to meet code for an upper level school (Middle, High School) are less stringent that those for and elementary school.

And I'll continue to lobby for the Charter Schools to be funded through a mechanism other than Chapter 70.