OPINION | EDITORIAL: This is skimming?

Then what would be challenging?

"Although charters are supposed to admit students by lottery, some effectively skim the best students from the pool, with enrollment procedures that discourage all but the most motivated parents to apply. Some charters have been known to nudge out their most troubled students."

--The New York Times, 2016

"Proponents highlight their ability to innovate and serve diverse populations, as well as their freedom from the kinds of rigid bureaucratic rules that constrain traditional public schools. Advocates often cite the successes of well-established charter-school operators like Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP). Critics, meanwhile, argue that they drain funds from public schools and 'cream skim' the best students from a community."

--The Atlantic, 2015

"Many charter schools succeed by excluding or limiting the number of students they accept who have disabilities or who are English language learners. They are also free to push out low-scoring students and send them back to the local public school. This improves their results, but it leaves the regular public schools with disproportionate numbers of the most challenging students."

--opinion piece in The Washington Post, 2012

This argument against public charter schools has been around for years: They cherry-pick the best students from an area, leaving traditional public schools with the most challenging students--"challenging" being a euphemism for kids from single-parent households, poor areas, or minority neighborhoods.

So, the argument goes, of course the charters would be at an advantage. They're getting all the easy kids!

Surely a body can find a charter school somewhere that's bending the rules. But there are just too many examples of charter schools going into tough ZIP codes, taking in all comers, and doing things the way they were meant to do. (And, it should be noted, when charter schools don't do things the right way, and are discovered, their charters can be taken away.)

We were reminded of charter schools, their opponents, and the most-often-used argument against charter schools the other day when we read Cynthia Howell's story on new school construction going on in central Arkansas. Academics Plus, Friendship Aspire Academy and the new Maumelle Charter are breaking ground on new buildings. They've had to go through paperwork and deadlines, but they're going full-speed ahead.

Speaking of Friendship Aspire Academy in Little Rock, that school has been open since March 2019 in the old Garland School on West 25th Street in south-central Little Rock.

When you talk about "challenging" areas in Little Rock, this would be a great place to start. The neighborhoods around the Garland School can be described, and often are, as high poverty. Yet this charter school is expanding its operations there. And building a new eight-classroom annex on the property.

And as the number of kids at the old Garland School, now Friendship Aspire, grow, the charter school is looking to expand elsewhere. According to Cynthia Howell's story: "Plans over time are to move the middle-school grades to a new campus to be built in the vicinity of Baseline and Chicot Roads . . . . A separate middle-school campus on spacious acreage will permit greater access to outdoor recreation--including a soccer field and [a] surrounding track for students who are likely to live in nearby neighborhoods . . . ."

Baseline and Chicot Roads? That is another part of the city that most would consider challenging.

This is skimming?

Some charter schools are doing the opposite of skimming. Some are marching into the most difficult and formidable places--although these teachers and administrators would more likely use terms like most exciting and stimulating.

And they are proud to gather in students from low-income and in some cases high-crime neighborhoods to lead them out of the wilderness. Which a good education tends to do.

It's clear that charter schools, at least in our state, are doing what they were intended to do: provide a better education option to those who need it the most. Also clear: The argument that all successful charter schools simply skim the best and brightest from the district is a myth that needs to be, yes, challenged.

Upcoming Events