Eduwonk has a very good post on the NYT article on charters from this weekend. His take is worth the read.
But he also has a second charter post up that I need to take issue with?if not with this exact position, then with the issue to which it speaks.
His basic case is that district superintendents are district superintendents not superintendents of their cities' charter sectors. Though this is certainly true technically, this is the type of turf thinking that has hurt urban kids for eons. A district leader should be in the business of making sure as many kids as possible are in great schools now and into the future?not ensuring his/her fiefdom's prerogatives are jealously guarded.
For example, imagine a high-performing national CMO was interested in starting a few new schools in DC and floated the idea to the district chancellor. If that chancellor was operating from the ?More Kids in Great Schools ASAP? playbook, he/she might say, ?In this city, as a charter you would get great funding, conscientious authorizer oversight, legal autonomy, and freedom from the collective bargaining agreement. The freedoms I could give you under the DCPS umbrella are far fewer and even those would be in jeopardy once a new chancellor comes into office. Therefore, you should go to the DC Public Charter Board and start charters. However, because I care about your success, I will give you all the building space you need to succeed since we have lots to spare.?
That's a completely different response than the one that would be given by someone interested in sustaining his/her district first and foremost.
Granted, we need to get to the point where we have policies that put school quality above school sector so the type of scenario outlined above is addressed automatically to the benefit of kids. Until we get there though, we need urban superintendents who operate that way despite the policies and practices current in place.
?Andy Smarick