Open letter from BPA & EACA to Superintendent Davis and the School Board....

[Jack]

Well I guess you can call me disappointed that EACA lacks the ability to analyze and make policy decisions based on anything other than the desires of people who attend meetings.

And EACA is supposed to be informed of your disappointment how, exactly?

I think the EACA President's response below yours answers that question.

Telling an individual about your concern via this website (which is more similar to your own private club rather than a public forum, regardless of its liberal admissions policy) is not the same as telling the EACA body as a whole about your concern during an official public meeting.

As it is, you're essentially trying to force Clue to champion your cause for you, which is unfair to him if he agrees and disenfranchises you if he doesn't. Either way, it's an inappropriate way of going about it.

More importantly, you are depriving your neighbors of the opportunity to hear and respond to your ideas (and it's not fair to ask them to join the Buzz, because again, it's not official and public).

Now, we could talk about changing the EACA bylaws so that a web forum discussion would count as a public meeting, but that process would have to itself happen publicly under the existing rules to be valid.

[Jack]

While perception plays a large role in the underperformance of Coan, the existence of no fewer than three charters on the east side – Imagine, ANCS and Drew, all of which are K-8 – has drawn off large numbers of middle school students.

I'm not sure I read this as critical.  I read it as pure numbers.

If it read "the existence of three charters..." it would be a statement of pure numbers. The wording "the existence of no fewer than three charters..." implies to me that three is considered to be too many.

I think it would be less fair to characterize the position as "anti" and more accurate to qualify it as "enough" (for now).

I think (from attending meetings and hearing the folks involved talk) that a position of "enough" is what is intended, but I agree with Ken that a position of "anti" is being conveyed by the wording of the letter.

Perhaps a slight revision, saying something to the effect of "we support the best interests of all our neighborhood schools, charter and traditional" is in order?

[Cap'n Ken]

EACA is putting its name on a call to stop new charter schools from opening in our area and criticizing the existence of charter schools for their impact on the local schools (middle and high schools, by the way, not the elementary school in East Atlanta). That's just not a position I can support, and I'm surprised EACA would take that position.

Not criticizing, IMHO.  Merely making note.  Looking at the charter paragraph:

Related to the points above, we understand that it is APS policy to grant a charter to any petition that meets the standards.  We ask that APS change this policy.  Otherwise, all planning and redistricting is moot.  While perception plays a large role in the underperformance of Coan, the existence of no fewer than three charters on the east side – Imagine, ANCS and Drew, all of which are K-8 – has drawn off large numbers of middle school students.  The popular belief that charter competition would raise the performance of local public schools has not been borne out nationally and most certainly has not been borne out in Atlanta.  This effect is likely to be exacerbated in communities in which the existing public school is closed.  Indeed, it is the very real fear that once several local schools are closed as part of this redistricting, the east side charter movement may seek to open a charter high school, undercutting the efforts to help Maynard Jackson HS realize its considerable potential.  We respectfully ask that you limit charters to areas which are noticeably underserved by APS, rather than allow them to cannibalize local schools that would otherwise thrive.

I'm not sure I read this as critical.  I read it as pure numbers.

[/size]Related to the points above, we understand that it is APS policy to grant a charter to any petition that meets the standards.  We ask that APS change this policy.  Otherwise, all planning and redistricting is moot.  While perception plays a large role in the underperformance of Coan, the existence of no fewer than three charters on the east side – Imagine, ANCS and Drew, all of which are K-8 – has drawn off large numbers of middle school students.  The popular belief that charter competition would raise the performance of local public schools has not been borne out nationally and most certainly has not been borne out in Atlanta.  This effect is likely to be exacerbated in communities in which the existing public school is closed.  Indeed, it is the very real fear that once several local schools are closed as part of this redistricting, the east side charter movement may seek to open a charter high school, undercutting the efforts to help Maynard Jackson HS realize its considerable potential.  We respectfully ask that you limit charters to areas which are noticeably underserved by APS, rather than allow them to cannibalize local schools that would otherwise thrive.

We have three charters in the area, and it would be difficult to delineate how the "competition" has improved the other local schools.  Again, no one is attacking charter parents, or the existing charter schools.  Indeed, the paper takes pains to describe this condition as "self-inflicted" by APS - We have said time and again that it was the hierarchical and insular philosophy of the previous APS admin that drove so many parents who desperately tried to get involved in the local schools into the creation of charters - but it also suggests that the area is currently very well-served by charters and to add more would only undercut the viability of the local public school.


I'd also add that the suggested stop was a temporary moratorium, and that no mention is of completely discontinuing charters, nor of preventing them from being implemented in areas that have few other options.  Under-served children should certainly have the access to a quality education.  Indeed, if one of the original suggestions to close BPA had been pursued, it is likely that many of the existing parents would have attempted to create a charter at BPA.  I think it would be less fair to characterize the position as "anti" and more accurate to qualify it as "enough" (for now).

I think you're misunderstanding where I see the criticism and what I do and don't dispute. It's the second thing you highlighted ("popular belief..") that is the criticism of charter schools and their effect on "local public schools". As I said, I'll stipulate that charter schools are bad for "local public schools" if you like. My point is that EACA, which is supposed to represent East Atlanta, is taking a position criticizing the charters' effect on BPA, Coan and Jackson - which may well be the case -  even though on the whole I believe the existence of those charters has been a huge positive for East Atlanta. So if EACA represents East Atlanta, does it not think charters have been good for us? Does it believe the health of the "local public schools" is more important than the health of East Atlanta? That seems to be what is said here if you consider the whole picture.

As for the "no new charters" position statement, the only thing specifically mentioned is a high school, and we don't have three charter high schools. We have none, and EACA's position is that none should be allowed. A charter high school must not be allowed because it would cannibalize Jackson - that's what EACA's official position is. I just can't get on board with that. Nor would I be opposed to East Atlanta parents opening a charter elementary in the model of NCS. Nor would I be opposed to BPA being converted to a charter. Access to good, local charter schools has and can go a long way toward improving East Atlanta. Are more "needed" or desired? I don't know. But I don't think it's to the benefit of the neighborhood to advocate the prohibition of any more opening here.

And if what's being proposed is a "temporary moratorium", why doesn't the position statement say that? It says EACA wants a policy change that only allows charter schools in areas "noticeably underserved" by APS.

[The Lord of the Jungle]

While perception plays a large role in the underperformance of Coan, the existence of no fewer than three charters on the east side – Imagine, ANCS and Drew, all of which are K-8 – has drawn off large numbers of middle school students.

I'm not sure I read this as critical.  I read it as pure numbers.

If it read "the existence of three charters..." it would be a statement of pure numbers. The wording "the existence of no fewer than three charters..." implies to me that three is considered to be too many.

I think it would be less fair to characterize the position as "anti" and more accurate to qualify it as "enough" (for now).

I think (from attending meetings and hearing the folks involved talk) that a position of "enough" is what is intended, but I agree with Ken that a position of "anti" is being conveyed by the wording of the letter.

Perhaps a slight revision, saying something to the effect of "we support the best interests of all our neighborhood schools, charter and traditional" is in order?

The "no fewer" was due to the fact that there's a prep academy that I think is operating on Memorial, and we were guessing there were actually other schools we were forgetting (as I did with Tech High).


Should we work in a position on bahn mi as well?   

[The Lord of the Jungle]

Tech High is a charter high, IIRC.  So technically the paper should indeed have said "an additional charter high".


I'm not sure I make the connection of this paper supporting local public schools over the health of East Atlanta; I think it presumes that the two are integral.  What is does not assume, and I think this might be where we're missing each other, is that additional charters would be good for East Atlanta, regardless of BPA.  But perhaps we're just really shaving hairs here, and I'm not seeing it.

[coffee achiever]

My issue is that the whole position presupposes that children not in the charters would go to APS schools. I believe research and demographics have demonstrated that it's MUCH more likely that the parents of those children would flee to suburbs with more viable school systems.

The position EACA has taken on charters seem to suggest a belief that charter schools - including the creation of a currently non-existent charter high school - would undermine the potential success of APS. I believe that the existence of charters forces APS to raise their game to compete for those same students, and that the end result is better education for all students. There is, in fact, research demonstrating that result. I'd love to see a citation for the EACA / BPA claim to the contrary.

If EACA and BPA are successful in enacting a moratorium on new charter schools, particularly a new charter high school to support the existing charter elementary and middle schools, I anticipate a mass exodus from East Atlanta in the next 4-6 years.

ETA: I stand corrected if Tech is a charter. My understanding is that it was a magnet.

[Cap'n Ken]

Well I guess you can call me disappointed that EACA lacks the ability to analyze and make policy decisions based on anything other than the desires of people who attend meetings.

And EACA is supposed to be informed of your disappointment how, exactly?

I think the EACA President's response below yours answers that question.

Telling an individual about your concern via this website (which is more similar to your own private club rather than a public forum, regardless of its liberal admissions policy) is not the same as telling the EACA body as a whole about your concern during an official public meeting.

As it is, you're essentially trying to force Clue to champion your cause for you, which is unfair to him if he agrees and disenfranchises you if he doesn't. Either way, it's an inappropriate way of going about it.

More importantly, you are depriving your neighbors of the opportunity to hear and respond to your ideas (and it's not fair to ask them to join the Buzz, because again, it's not official and public).

Now, we could talk about changing the EACA bylaws so that a web forum discussion would count as a public meeting, but that process would have to itself happen publicly under the existing rules to be valid.

I'm merely stating my opinions here in response to the position statement being posted here. I don't imagine your suggestion would be for me to just sit tight and bring it up at the next EACA meeting, would it?

The appropriate interjection point for something like this would be during the position statement formation. So when was this discussed and voted on by EACA? I imagine if I were active (I'm not a paid EACA member and haven't been for some time) and regularly attended meetings I would have seen this come up for discussion and a vote? Frankly I don't have the right to try to push EACA toward a position because I'm not involved. I don't see how that makes it a problem for me to express my disappointment at the stance, though.

Or are you suggesting EACA's actions should not be discussed and criticized outside of EACA meetings?

[dsnation]

I think you're misunderstanding where I see the criticism and what I do and don't dispute. It's the second thing you highlighted ("popular belief..") that is the criticism of charter schools and their effect on "local public schools". As I said, I'll stipulate that charter schools are bad for "local public schools" if you like. My point is that EACA, which is supposed to represent East Atlanta, is taking a position criticizing the charters' effect on BPA, Coan and Jackson - which may well be the case -  even though on the whole I believe the existence of those charters has been a huge positive for East Atlanta. So if EACA represents East Atlanta, does it not think charters have been good for us? Does it believe the health of the "local public schools" is more important than the health of East Atlanta? That seems to be what is said here if you consider the whole picture.

As for the "no new charters" position statement, the only thing specifically mentioned is a high school, and we don't have three charter high schools. We have none, and EACA's position is that none should be allowed. A charter high school must not be allowed because it would cannibalize Jackson - that's what EACA's official position is. I just can't get on board with that. Nor would I be opposed to East Atlanta parents opening a charter elementary in the model of NCS. Nor would I be opposed to BPA being converted to a charter. Access to good, local charter schools has and can go a long way toward improving East Atlanta. Are more "needed" or desired? I don't know. But I don't think it's to the benefit of the neighborhood to advocate the prohibition of any more opening here.

And if what's being proposed is a "temporary moratorium", why doesn't the position statement say that? It says EACA wants a policy change that only allows charter schools in areas "noticeably underserved" by APS.

I'll go further.  EACA just backed APS at the expense of current and any future charter schools in the area.  It staked out a position that is hostile to innovation in order to further entrench a failing and corrupt system.  Yes, BPA is a great school, but the entire system drags down our community. 

What's worse is that the statement was completely and totally unnecessary.  I understand why the administration of BPA might feel threatened by charter schools, but the EACA didn't need to make any statement on the issue.  The paragraph could be excised from the letter and the remaining recommendations would retain their force.

[Cap'n Ken]

Tech High is a charter high, IIRC.  So technically the paper should indeed have said "an additional charter high".

I think you're far from the first to forget Tech High ...

I'm not sure I make the connection of this paper supporting local public schools over the health of East Atlanta; I think it presumes that the two are integral.  What is does not assume, and I think this might be where we're missing each other, is that additional charters would be good for East Atlanta, regardless of BPA.  But perhaps we're just really shaving hairs here, and I'm not seeing it.

The charter statement there is really less about BPA than Coan and Jackson, at least as written. And my reading of it is absolutely anti-charter school for the sake of propping up enrollment at the regular schools. It's public school protectionism, and I believe that attitude is completely counterproductive to the future of the area.

[Cap'n Ken]

I think you're misunderstanding where I see the criticism and what I do and don't dispute. It's the second thing you highlighted ("popular belief..") that is the criticism of charter schools and their effect on "local public schools". As I said, I'll stipulate that charter schools are bad for "local public schools" if you like. My point is that EACA, which is supposed to represent East Atlanta, is taking a position criticizing the charters' effect on BPA, Coan and Jackson - which may well be the case -  even though on the whole I believe the existence of those charters has been a huge positive for East Atlanta. So if EACA represents East Atlanta, does it not think charters have been good for us? Does it believe the health of the "local public schools" is more important than the health of East Atlanta? That seems to be what is said here if you consider the whole picture.

As for the "no new charters" position statement, the only thing specifically mentioned is a high school, and we don't have three charter high schools. We have none, and EACA's position is that none should be allowed. A charter high school must not be allowed because it would cannibalize Jackson - that's what EACA's official position is. I just can't get on board with that. Nor would I be opposed to East Atlanta parents opening a charter elementary in the model of NCS. Nor would I be opposed to BPA being converted to a charter. Access to good, local charter schools has and can go a long way toward improving East Atlanta. Are more "needed" or desired? I don't know. But I don't think it's to the benefit of the neighborhood to advocate the prohibition of any more opening here.

And if what's being proposed is a "temporary moratorium", why doesn't the position statement say that? It says EACA wants a policy change that only allows charter schools in areas "noticeably underserved" by APS.

I'll go further.  EACA just backed APS at the expense of current and any future charter schools in the area.  It staked out a position that is hostile to innovation in order to further entrench a failing and corrupt system.  Yes, BPA is a great school, but the entire system drags down our community. 

What's worse is that the statement was completely and totally unnecessary.  I understand why the administration of BPA might feel threatened by charter schools, but the EACA didn't need to make any statement on the issue.  The paragraph could be excised from the letter and the remaining recommendations would retain their force.

Yeppers. I can see why the conversations around consolidation of elementaries and Coan's fate would get into the effect of charter schools, but really that's something best left for another time. I can't even tell you now what else they say in that letter.

[Jack]

I'm merely stating my opinions here in response to the position statement being posted here. I don't imagine your suggestion would be for me to just sit tight and bring it up at the next EACA meeting, would it?

...

Or are you suggesting EACA's actions should not be discussed and criticized outside of EACA meetings?

Way to present a false choice there! The two alternatives you present are equivalent to "don't talk about it here" and "don't talk about it anywhere."

My suggestion is different from both of those: talk about it here all you want, but if you want to change EACA's position then you need to also talk about it at EACA!

[coffee achiever]

Why should EACA have taken a position on charters - that now apparently I need to come to EACA meetings to discuss / debate - to begin with? I think the community can agree that improving the quality of our local public schools benefits all, but the pros and cons of charter schools are hardly so clear cut, and given the number of EACA members and community residents invested in building the charter schools in the area, taking an anti-charter position seems inappropriate and unnecessary.

It could be argued that the choices afforded by the charter schools in the area are an attraction for potential residents as well as current ones, and that by taking a position to limit those choices, EACA has also reduced the attraction - which could ultimately have a negative impact on home sales and home values.

Where are GPCA and SAND on this issue?

[Cap'n Ken]

I'm merely stating my opinions here in response to the position statement being posted here. I don't imagine your suggestion would be for me to just sit tight and bring it up at the next EACA meeting, would it?

...

Or are you suggesting EACA's actions should not be discussed and criticized outside of EACA meetings?

Way to present a false choice there! The two alternatives you present are equivalent to "don't talk about it here" and "don't talk about it anywhere."

My suggestion is different from both of those: talk about it here all you want, but if you want to change EACA's position then you need to also talk about it at EACA!

Yes, please edit out the parts of my response where I address that. Makes you look smart.

The appropriate interjection point for something like this would be during the position statement formation. So when was this discussed and voted on by EACA? I imagine if I were active (I'm not a paid EACA member and haven't been for some time) and regularly attended meetings I would have seen this come up for discussion and a vote? Frankly I don't have the right to try to push EACA toward a position because I'm not involved. I don't see how that makes it a problem for me to express my disappointment at the stance, though.

So when was this discussed and voted on by EACA? Was there any debate about the language then?

[The Lord of the Jungle]

I'm not sure I make the connection of this paper supporting local public schools over the health of East Atlanta; I think it presumes that the two are integral.  What is does not assume, and I think this might be where we're missing each other, is that additional charters would be good for East Atlanta, regardless of BPA.  But perhaps we're just really shaving hairs here, and I'm not seeing it.

The charter statement there is really less about BPA than Coan and Jackson, at least as written. And my reading of it is absolutely anti-charter school for the sake of propping up enrollment at the regular schools. It's public school protectionism, and I believe that attitude is completely counterproductive to the future of the area.

I wouldn't characterize it as "propping up", more as "coordinate your planning".  This is less about charter seats than it is about seats, period.  It's merely that charters represent the most frequent source of adding seats.  If an APS option suggested opening a new non-charter PS in EA, we'd likely come out against that as well.  In the current financial model, adding seats where they're not needed doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, especially with APS insistence (at least via redistricting) that schools meet some percentage threshold of enrollment.  I guess the difference is that I don't see "Public School Protectionism" as a pejorative.

I'll go further.  EACA just backed APS at the expense of current and any future charter schools in the area.  It staked out a position that is hostile to innovation in order to further entrench a failing and corrupt system.  Yes, BPA is a great school, but the entire system drags down our community. 

What's worse is that the statement was completely and totally unnecessary.  I understand why the administration of BPA might feel threatened by charter schools, but the EACA didn't need to make any statement on the issue.  The paragraph could be excised from the letter and the remaining recommendations would retain their force.

A few issues with that characterization.  First, I'd disagree that the statement "backed" APS, unless you read only that one para.  APS is the one that grants charters.  They're also the entity that we're insisting reconstitute Coan.  We're also insisting on an expedited personnel process.  And I hardly see hostility toward innovation, unless your belief is that only charters or private schools can be sources of innovation.


In the end, I think you can probably relax.  Given the passage of the House charter school bill, APS is likely to be pretty much powerless to regulate any compliant charter.

My issue is that the whole position presupposes that children not in the charters would go to APS schools. I believe research and demographics have demonstrated that it's MUCH more likely that the parents of those children would flee to suburbs with more viable school systems.

The position EACA has taken on charters seem to suggest a belief that charter schools - including the creation of a currently non-existent charter high school - would undermine the potential success of APS. I believe that the existence of charters forces APS to raise their game to compete for those same students, and that the end result is better education for all students. There is, in fact, research demonstrating that result. I'd love to see a citation for the EACA / BPA claim to the contrary.

If EACA and BPA are successful in enacting a moratorium on new charter schools, particularly a new charter high school to support the existing charter elementary and middle schools, I anticipate a mass exodus from East Atlanta in the next 4-6 years.

ETA: I stand corrected if Tech is a charter. My understanding is that it was a magnet.

I respect your belief on that, but there is little evidence, esp. among APS to support that assertion.  Schools respond to one thing above all else: Parental involvement.  ANCS, despite its old facility and a lack of support from the system, thrives due to the activism of its parents.  But to suggest that that has somehow resulted in other ES facilities raising their game is IMHO wishful thinking.  Some of the most successful schools in the system are in North Atlanta, where charters are few and far between.


Regarding your exodus, I'd take that bet.  What little I understand of market dynamics would suggest otherwise, and that one of the most stabilizing aspects for home prices would be a highly-regarded public school.


And unless Tech High's sign is misleading, they are indeed a charter.


Again, this is I think going to be a moot point.  Instead of APS regulating charters, we'll have the GA State legislature.

[Cap'n Ken]

I'm not sure I make the connection of this paper supporting local public schools over the health of East Atlanta; I think it presumes that the two are integral.  What is does not assume, and I think this might be where we're missing each other, is that additional charters would be good for East Atlanta, regardless of BPA.  But perhaps we're just really shaving hairs here, and I'm not seeing it.

The charter statement there is really less about BPA than Coan and Jackson, at least as written. And my reading of it is absolutely anti-charter school for the sake of propping up enrollment at the regular schools. It's public school protectionism, and I believe that attitude is completely counterproductive to the future of the area.

I wouldn't characterize it as "propping up", more as "coordinate your planning".  This is less about charter seats than it is about seats, period.  It's merely that charters represent the most frequent source of adding seats.  If an APS option suggested opening a new non-charter PS in EA, we'd likely come out against that as well.  In the current financial model, adding seats where they're not needed doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense, especially with APS insistence (at least via redistricting) that schools meet some percentage threshold of enrollment.  I guess the difference is that I don't see "Public School Protectionism" as a pejorative.

It's not about seats. There are plenty of seats. Just not at the schools that are in demand. What the "no new charter schools" demand and the "charter schools hurt 'local public schools'" battle cry are trying to do is force kids into "seats" that are not in demand by limiting the availability of "seats" that are in demand. That serves the interest of BPA backers, Coan backers and Jackson backers, and you'd absolutely expect them to advocate for that.

EACA, however, seems like an organization that is supposed to be an East Atlanta backer, not a BPA backer. So is it in the interest of East Atlanta to advocate for no new charter schools and decry the effect on "local public schools" the existing charters have? If so, tell me how and tell me how EACA came to that conclusion.