Charters and School Choice

An interesting article on charter schools and school choice. He's right too that a lot of old responses to school issues have resurfaced: tracking, punitive school assignments, trophy schools, and top-down decision making to name a few. I like this project approach to curriculum but this is a good point: why not take it up in mainstream urban schools? Sadly, the view seems to be that "these kids" can't handle those types of innovative approaches (read urban kids, poor kids, kids of color).

“Jose Evans explains vote against school”

Turn IPS alternatives into charter-like schools of choice

Monday evening, with much thought, I voted against chartering the Project School. A community school seeking to help Brightwood through student projects is needed. Yet, the circumstances raised questions: Don’t we have enough charters? Why didn’t IPS come up with the “Project School”?

Reprinted from Indianapolis Recorder February 22, 2008 p. A 6

Reprinted from Indianapolis Recorder February 22, 2008 p. A 6


Recent statistics imply local charters perform no better than IPS. Charters have made their point: families/students need options and schools need flexibility.

Since IPS requests the mayor not grant more charters, isn’t it time IPS co-opted the idea, countering charters by turning IPS alternatives into charter-like schools of choice?

The December 17 Star article, “IPS expands alternatives to help troubled students” promotes a deficit model of children. The April 11 editorial, “Tailoring teaching sites for those who don’t fit in” suggests disadvantaged children need alternatives because of their own deficiencies—social, educational or linguistic—while the function of punitive alternatives, as a system of exclusion, goes unquestioned.

This is perplexing. Why would IPS take a concept created in the 60s and 70s by courageous southern freedom schools, innovative urban storefronts, democratic free schools, and the culturally pioneering independent black schools movement (each challenged the “one best system” paradigm) and turn the idea into involuntary and rigid programs that punish children for not doing well in failing schools--hiding behind the most vulnerable to protect the district from criticism?



Is the IPS expansion to 21 alternatives representing the academic cleansing of the regular schools; becoming places for refugees of the school uniforms policy and mediocre teachers; acting as a district-wide disciplinary threat, particularly intimidating magnet students; politically eliminating students from their homeschool’s ISTEP/GQE scores, graduation rate, and AYP calculations; creating a separate and unequal parallel system of 2nd class schools taking IPS back to before 1954; thus, moving out of sight an IPS created underclass?



By removing school refusers, these alternatives become a more refined type of segregation. Our courts concluded that segregated education was inferior. Segregation is particularly insidious when based on one’s status as “being in need.” As long as the cost of admission is declaring yourself “unfit,” attending an alternative stigmatizes.

The concept of alternatives as just for “bad kids” prevents them from helping all students. Although they help a few, nationally low graduation rates prove IPS disciplinary alternatives have not kept students in school.

If alternatives are better places for some, as the Star/IPS have implied, why label students? Remove the stigma. Don’t wait until students become disruptive. Turn alternatives into proactive charter-like schools for any student, giving teachers flexibility and ownership, and challenging them to create programs where students want to be, not have to be. 21st century families deserve learning alternatives for everyone all the time.



Jose M. Evans
Chairman, Black & Latino Policy Institute and Councilor, District 1