The Washington Post recently reported that DC approved three new charter schools. What bothers me the most about this: do we really need any new charters? How can we have so many different operators in one city, with wildly different leadership styles and educational philosophies? Plus, one of these schools is being opened by a former member of the Board. 

Monument, whose founder is former charter board member Emily Bloomfield, plans to open in 2015 with 40 fifth-graders in a location yet to be determined. The charter board approved it for middle grades, with the opportunity to apply later to expand into high school.

Is this not necessarily illegal, but ethically dubious? And how the hell can you approve a school that has no idea where they’re going to put 40 ten year olds, where there are perfectly good locations already in existence? Give those current locations the support they need to educate these students. Why bring in an untested, unproven, and amateur model? 

I also find that references to “seats” is problematic.

The changes would add hundreds of charter-school seats across the city, many of them meant for at-risk youths who have few good educational options.

These are not chairs being added. These are flesh and blood human beings. Should we not convert this terminology from “seats” to “souls?” To me, use of the word “seats” in this context belies a focus on acquisition of valuable per-pupil dollars and not necessarily the children taking up those seats. Add a seat, get some more money. Pass the deadline, you keep the money, then the student, if they are a problem, can be shuffled, suspended, expelled, or transferred to the public system, which happens ALL OF THE TIME, without losing those coveted “per-seat dollars.”

We’re not talking about children here. We’re talking about expanding SEATS. This translates to the “success” of the model from a business perspective. “We are expanding our seats from 100 to 250 next year,” they say. Well, congratulations on your seats. You must be very proud of your business. 

Ultimately, all of this achievement preparatory, success first, marketing nonsense is all smoke and mirrors. Co-locating with a charter school, there is nothing revolutionary and transformative occurring. These are classrooms with four walls, broken up in grade levels, with teachers and administrators, and a less than transformative, traditional Essentialist curricular model. They’ve not reinvented any wheel, but merely painted a new sheen and finish on a very old and broken one.

Here’s an idea: peddle your wares to the affluent. Let’s see how far you get in, say, Northwest DC or the Upper West Side with your no-excuses nonsense. If you are as innovative and groundbreaking as you claim, I suppose parents in those areas would love you. But examine any map of charter schools in any city and tell me what patterns you notice. Clever marketing. Snazzy messages. Colorful and glossy promotional materials. But snazzy enough for the most discerning “consumers?”

Probably not.

So keep opening up those schools in poor black and brown neighborhoods while lacking the courage to offer your miracle of “choice” to those who can afford all kinds of consumer options.