Good.

I'm opposed to the whole idea of establishing Charter Schools so anything that can be done to limit their growth counts as a positive.

That said... there is no excuse for allowing continued festering of the same too well known problems that plague the underlying school system and directly cause specific schools to fail.

But rather than removing the best students (and teachers!) from the most motivated homes with the highest level of willingness to act in their own best interests out of those neighborhood schools... there must be a simple method available to remove the students from the opposite end of the spectrum to facilities designed to compensate for their lack of the basics.

Two years (or so) early in the lives of this clearly and easily identified population spent on focused remedial school work and social acculturation and you'll have a child ready to re-enter their old neighborhood school and be a leader there.

Whether they will want to move back into what passed for a "family home" is the bridge to be crossed at that time. I look forward to and welcome having that problem to deal with instead of the one we currently do.

Deal with the real problems people... not just the symptoms.

From CEF website:

"The Center for Education Reform drives the creation of better educational opportunities for all children by leading parents, policymakers and the media in boldly advocating for school choice, advancing the charter school movement, and challenging the education establishment."

What else would you expect the CEF to say?

@MrRational -
Your assumption is that the only reason anyone would want to go to a charter school (or anything besides their neighborhood school) is because of kids with behavior problems at their neighborhood school. In my experience that is only one of many reasons. Others include:
- poor school leadership
- not having a program that a kid needs and/or wants (special needs, gifted and talented, performing arts etc)
- not providing a welcoming attitude towards specific kids and/or parents
- over-crowded conditions
- poor facilities

School choice includes City-wides, charters, transformation. In the not so distant past school choice was only for the well-connected well-informed few who knew about schools that had extra seats or who could fake in-zone addresses. I'm happy that we've got a system that is much more fair now. If you get rid of school choice you will see the number of families exiting City Schools (through moving or paying for private schools) go up. You can say good, but loosing students and families seems really bad to me.

As far as the original report card finding goes - it seems like a sign to me that even though it is hard to start charter schools there are people willing to do it - mainly in Baltimore City. Clearly City Schools need more options, not less.

@a parent your (poor) assumption is that you can read my mind but rather than just asking me a pointed question or two (to expand or refine my statement) you put words into my mouth and then just go off on to your own agenda.

My point is very simple: Support the neighborhood school to be adequate to meet the needs for most (80%?) of the kids there. It is no more than that.

That there are other needs to be met in that neighborhood population and there are other problems to be faced with all that makes up a bureaucracy... well, that all remains a whole other set of battles.

But to the end of serving the neighborhood well, removing the best and/or brightest, those from the most motivated homes in that neighborhood is absolutely the worst thing you can do to that school. It is that simple.

I recognize the appeal of the Charter model on a practical level (as a way to sidestep the entrenched among others) and while they may serve the 20% at the top very well... they leave rack and ruin in their wake as they do so.

And the problematic population runs the gamut. It is not merely behavior although that usually masks deeper academic problems and the family/social problems that the "regular" staff in those neighborhood schools shouldn't have to be bothered with.

As to population losses my suspicion is that as more families begin the commute away from the neighborhood school they will decide to just keep on going.

EVERY (neighborhood) school should be able to pick and choose their students... or more to the point pick which students will NOT be there.

The problem remains of what to do with these socially and academically challenged kids regardless of what else is going on with the others. And if that isn't faced it won't matter how effective the Charter schools are.

Actually, Ms. Bowie, local school districts may not set their own limits. The Board in Baltimore tried to do just that when it first developed its charter school policy, saying that it would open a maximum of 3 charter schools the first year. The MSBE ordered the local board to remove that restriction from its policy. Yes, the local board can "control" the number of charter schools by rejecting applications, but if their rationale is suspect, the local board could lose on appeal.

@ AP - " people willing to do it - mainly in Baltimore City" - its simple.... its the MONEY. The principal of the charter school in my neighborhood makes more money then the principal at the City College high school. He is also on the charter school board.

Who wouldn't want to be their own boss?