Sign Up For Our Newsletter

In 1983, A Nation At Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform was released. This report from the U.S. Department of Education highlighted a number of troubling findings on the state of education in the U.S. The most disturbing – U.S. students are lagging behind in test scores when compared to their overseas counterparts. According to the 1997 Florida Statute 228.056, one of the many purposes of charter schools was to “make the school the unit for improvement.” Charter schools have become the needed catalyst for change in public education. It is not surprising that both charter and traditional school test scores have enjoyed steady improvement since the charter onset.

I am therefore deeply disappointed with the Orlando Sentinel’s recent charter school series entitled Charter Schools: Missing the Grade. The series attempts to paint with one brush all of the Florida charter schools. It is true that there are low performing or fiscally irresponsible charters that need to be closed. However, the same holds true for traditional schools. Adding insult to injury are the series’ attempts to explain that good charters exist because they implement discriminatory practices. The facts and figures have been presented in an incomplete manner and have been massaged to accommodate one newspaper’s viewpoint. Its references and innuendos bring to mind a number of fallacies including hasty generalizations, false dilemma, slippery slope, and appeal to emotion.

Charter schools have faced an incredible struggle in the past 10 years. I was one of those people, who, like The Sentinel, perpetuated misinformation about charters. Then one day, someone educated me. Today, I am a principal for three charter schools that serve more than 1,200 students. It is my hope that The Sentinel’s writers and editors – and readers – will read this rebuttal with an open mind and be enlightened. Apart from the Florida Department of Education website, my primary references for this response are Florida’s Charter Schools, A Decade of Progress and Student Achievement in Florida’s Charter Schools, A Comparison with Achievement in Traditional Public Schools. Both of these reports were released within the past year and are readily available on the Florida DOE website.

Charter schools struggle for funding. Several studies indicate that on average, traditional schools generate a few thousand dollars more per child. In Florida, it is rare to see a charter school receive access to capital outlay millage – a major source of revenue for traditional schools. The series makes a brief reference to capital funding that is available to charters after three years. However, this fund is limited and is divided amongst all eligible schools. Without a credit history and because the viability of charters can be abruptly ended (by the ending of the charter), most lending institutions will not lend to charter schools or they will lend at very high rates. It is therefore typically inappropriate to say that certain charter schools have paid significantly more than they should have. It is quite possible that there was no other alternative. This is one reason why churches (which are criticized in the series) or otherwise unused community buildings are sought after for charter schools.

On several occasions throughout the series the reporting states directly or implies that a number of charter schools have small percentages of kids performing at grade level in reading and math tests. The fact is that despite many students entering charter schools below the academic achievement level of their peers in traditional public schools, charter school performance is comparable to traditional schools. The Risky Choices article in this series actually acknowledges this. Further, a five-year-trajectory-line analysis on test scores (both reading and math) indicates that the slope of improvement is steeper for charters than traditional schools. So not only are we doing comparably, but the rate at which we are improving is quicker. In 2005-2006, 47% of charter schools earned an A, 18% a B, 20% a C, 6% a D, and 2% an F. The Sentinel asserts repeated throughout the series and again in a follow up story that charters account for a quarter of the failing school grades yet educate less than three percent of the students. How can one in good faith compare an F charter school that services 100 children or less, with an F traditional school that services over 1,000 students? This is a complete misuse of statistics.

At one point The Sentinel states that some charters manage to get good grades because they accept smaller numbers of poorer and disabled kids. Yet, in another article reporters acknowledge that there is less than a 10% difference in percentage of traditional school children versus charter school children who qualify for free and reduced lunch. That same article acknowledges a less than 3% difference in percentage of traditional school children versus charter school children that have disabilities. Then article then attempts to refute these numbers by saying that an individual school analysis would not generate these averages. However, many charters that are specifically developed for children with disabilities are too small to be graded – which is in itself another of The Sentinel’s criticisms. Notwithstanding the above, the test scores that students with disabilities (except gifted and speech) earn, are exempt from half of the variables that determine a school grade. Further, many students with disabilities are exempt from taking the FCAT. And many charter principals I know seek disabled children to serve. The discriminatory practices reasoning of the article is unfounded and illogical. It is true that minority status, socioeconomic status, and disability have often been linked to low test scores. Although disability percentage data is not readily available on the state website, a number of charter schools have earned an A and have had a high number of minority students and economically disadvantaged students. Generalities are not always appropriate or representative of reality.

The increased flexibility and autonomy of a charter school does not come without a price. The state exerts a greater level of accountability on charter schools as evidenced by the closure of 78 charter schools in the past 10 years. Traditional public schools however, are not shut down so quickly. Dozens of traditional schools would not remain open under criteria applied to charter schools. Extreme examples include: Jones High (Orange) and Miami Edison Senior (Dade) – which have been graded as an F school for the past five years. One article notes that Florida no longer shuts down charter schools with two F’s. I have asked Florida DOE staff, who advised that that statement is not correct. Although some charters do not get graded, all must meet Adequate Yearly Progress, as defined by No Child Left Behind. Every public school generates these reports. Moreover, sanctions are imposed on schools that do not meet Adequate Yearly Progress. The Sentinel reports that ungraded schools escape mandatory corrective action for remediation. Being ungraded is not synonymous with needing corrective action. Somerset Elementary Davie and Somerset Elementary Miramar were both ungraded. Yet both met 100% AYP. Irrespective of county or state checks and balances, the greatest charter school accountability is parental oversight. Trust you me, when charter school parents withdraw their child(ren), their message is heard loud and clear in any charter school. Accountability exists and is evident at multiple levels.

Charter schools are schools of choice. What may be right for one child will not be right for another. The series recounts several occasions wherein the parents did not do their due diligence to determine the appropriateness of a school. However, it was conveniently omitted that the same way these parents chose a wrong charter, they could have just as easily chosen another charter or their boundary traditional school. Because the featured schools were not the appropriate setting for these former students does not indicate that the school is not appropriate for other children who would otherwise be high school drop outs. Those schools may very well be the last hope for many students.

With so many charter schools in the state, I am perplexed at how Sentinel reporters manage to reference my schools twice and both occasions with negative implications. Allow me to share with you the successes of my middle and high school. We opened in 2001 with 49 students. Five years later, we now serve more than 1,200. As a school of choice, this enrollment growth speaks volumes. We sought and secured SACS accreditation. Incidentally, our

sister Somerset Elementary in Miramar was the first charter school to seek and secure SACS accreditation. This past year, Somerset Middle was acknowledged for being one of the top 75 middle schools in the state for making progress. Although we ranked 47 in the list, our sister Somerset Middle in Miami ranked first. Our middle school also made its Shoot for the Stars goal designated by the Florida Department of Education. Further, it was recognized by the Florida School Recognition program. Our high school was acknowledged for being one of the top 50 high schools in the state for making progress (we ranked third). Somerset High was also recognized for being in the top 100 high schools in the state for making progress in writing. Our proficiency rate increased from 82% to 94% in one year. Moreover, Somerset High was acknowledged by the Florida School Recognition Program.

Charter schools have had an impact on both my professional and personal life. My son once attended one of Miami’s lowest performing high schools. Within the first few weeks of his enrollment, his grades dropped, he became a truant, and was on his way to being a high school dropout. This was totally unacceptable. Accordingly, I enrolled him at a nearby charter high school. He is now in the top of his class and in a foreign language program that allows him to enter the European university system upon his graduation. Without this choice, I am certain he would be a high school dropout.

On behalf of my faculty, parents, and students, we do not appreciate being equated to the stories of failure, incompetency, or discriminatory practices. The series title, Charter Schools: Missing the Grade, has a direct connotation that all charters are “missing the grade.” Let me assure all -Somerset Academy is making the grade. Charters have had the burden of doing more with less. Some were unable and are closed; others pursued chartering for the wrong reason. However, the resounding truth is that charters have greatly facilitated education reform in Florida. Beyond that, charters have provided an opportunity for parents to become active and educated consumers in the education of their children. I can only hope that everyone will one day experience firsthand, as I have, the benefits of charter schools.

David Calvo is Principal of Somerset Academy Middle, Somerset Academy High, and Somerset Arts Conservatory. This article first appeared at www.edreform.com.