By first grade I was in Catholic Schools and I was informed that whoever was in Catholic Schools was acceptable to associate with (regardless of color) and everybody else required prior authorization… Eventually we all learned what the requirements were. Attempts at association outside of the approved list were made very unpleasant.

Were they trying to protect my cohort from tagging along for an armed robbery or a heroin pickup? Well some (prominent) black families weren’t so picky in Oakland and that’s exactly what their kids got. But they weren’t Catholic – they went to black churches in the first place. Anyway the 1960′s were a lot of fun.

But my parents bristled at false praise and unearned superlatives. When anybody – especially whites – threw those around my cohorts the parents would fume and worse. Remember, most of them had military experiences and that’s part of where they were first “integrated” into white contacts. The understood paying dues, rank and civil service seniority. They knew false praise when they heard it and what that really meant.

They themselves generally went to all black schools and lived in all black neighborhoods “back east”. Following the Good War and the mass relocation to CA they tended to hang politically with Catholic and Jewish & Democratic Party (ethnic coalition) interests.

Compared to the generation present now, this WWII generation were to me tougher and more focused. They were serious about education for their kids, maybe more so than now. And they weren’t very politically correct either.

I my memories they weren’t so much fleeing the black society as wanting in on the white society goodies. We would have been at the top of the black schools as our parents were. But my parent’s generation decided to use my generation to get what they didn’t have which was mainstream university level education. That means not going to Ghetto High.

There were some unintended consequences.. the interracial marriages for one.

I do think each school and program should be brutally honest about who they are for and who they are not for and say openly that each school program is not suitable for every child. And we have got to have different programs for the different kids – while allowing people to move at will (and by being kicked out) when the student & family want to try a different school/program and have the prerequisites.

I think the private schools do this. The Charters will probably get to this before the Publics will because the Publics cling to the fantasy that all persons are equal when they aren’t.

It appears to me that our students and our educational system would be better served if the charter folks were honest about this — and conversely, I believe that our students and our educational system are harmed by their dishonesty.

I know it’s true that many African-American families left for the suburbs. My guess would be that was for a list of reasons, but that safety and protection from the influence of problem companions would be at the top.

Therefore your position that the Charters cream cannot be denied. Whether they discourage undesirable applicants actively or passively the results are always the same. Cream.

As far as the minority parents motives in keeping their kids out of the Urban Publics – it is more complicated that you have stated. I remember well my parent’s moving from the black neighborhood in 1959 to an all white neighborhood. I remember some of the comments. I noticed that all their friends were doing the same in that period. Yes, ALL their (black Professional) friends. Some of them had to do so using straw men to buy the new houses. There were difficulties in getting the mortgages, Bank Of America would not issue a mortgage for any black to move to a non-black neighborhood as one of their close friends learned. The mortgage was approved until the address was provided and it was learned that the proposed address was “white”. They found another bank.

A few responses:

I completely understand why it benefits the school and the students to “only (take) the ‘cream’ of incoming students.”

The first task is to point out that that’s happening and persuade the charter folks to stop denying it. Are we all on the same page now, acknowledging that charter schools cream? Thank you.

The false claim that charter schools accept the same cross-section of students as public schools and simply do better with them is, aside from being wrong because it’s a lie, seriously damaging to public schools. So we’re all now agreed that that claim is untrue, dead and buried.

Nextset says:

“OUSD believes you can run a “school” by mixing unsuitable “students” with real students. No real school operates that way.”

I would question whether OUSD is running that way because of an institutional belief or philosophy. The situation in our public education system requires OUSD to try to do that (what I’ll rephrase as educating highly challenged students along with higher-functioning students), and OUSD figuratively grits its collective teeth and tries to do it. I’ll rephrase Nextset’s “real school” as “successful school.”

In my personal experience and observation, a school with a certain percentage of troubled, at-risk, high-need students amid the higher-functioning students can absorb the struggling students and still function effectively. When the percentage of troubled, at-risk high-need students grows to critical mass, the school becomes overwhelmed.

Nextset says: “The point is that you don’t allow people into your student body believed to be unwilling or unable to fit in and get with the program. Those that don’t must go to some program suited for them so they don’t wreck the real school.”

This is a restatement, in less-gentle language, of what Sharon posted earlier, and I agree with it. In some form, such a system needs to be created for urban schools.

Nextset says: “The true mission of these systems is to keep the minorities in false happiness and promote false achievement long enough to get these people to the age of majority and out of the system. Along the way we see the false grading and the unearned bogus superlatives (”wonderful” is my favorite). Many minority parents see through this and keep their kids clear of these “schools”.”

Maybe I’m out of line as I’m not a minority parent (though surely Nextset would be the last person to blast me for not being PC), but I’m going to speculate on the motives of the minority parents Nextset refers to.

I would bet that their primary concern is not the “false grading and the unearned bogus superlatives” but the real dangers posed by the “street” kids’ association with their kids. Both physical safety and separation from troublesome influences are serious concerns. (I’m talking about minority kids here, since they face threats their peers from other communities do not. As an example: An African-American classmate of my daughter’s in their middle school honors classes was subjected to torment and threats from her African-American peers, simply for being in the honors program. The tormentors never bothered my white daughter at all and were not a threat nor an annoyance to her.)

In other words, I well understand why minority families are desperate for a way out of schools full of troubled, at-risk, low-functioning students from their own communities. I strongly support finding a way to allow the public schools to create such a system.

But my original point is:

– Charter schools cream.
– Then, in general, they deny doing so and claim that they’re simply superior to the public schools that accept the students dumped by the charter schools.
– That harms the public schools by eroding support for them, when they need MORE support as they have to deal with the most challenged students.

Despite the creaming, by the way, charter schools do not overall show higher achievement than public schools.

The back and forth about the Charters and OMI only taking the “cream” of incoming students is interesting.

They are trying to be schools.

OUSD believes you can run a “school” by mixing unsuitable “students” with real students. No real school operates that way. You can’t mix sewage with swimming pool water either.

The screening can be significant such as the US Military Academies or it can be subtle such as a trade school barring any student that failed to show up at the mandatory orientation meeting. The point is that you don’t allow people into your student body believed to be unwilling or unable to fit in and get with the program. Those that don’t must go to some program suited for them so they don’t wreck the real school.

There is nothing bad about this process, it’s how you maintain a real “school” rather than the failure factories the Urban School Districts pass off as a School.

Just as swimming in sewage makes people sick, trying to get educated in a crowd of disorderly “students” produces weaker graduates with behaviorial problems (bad norms). Who people don’t want to hire.

As I have said before, since the “Civil Rights Movement” of the 1960s the mission of US public school systems have changed from education and running real schools to pacification of urban minorities. Education is strictly an secondary mission, it’s nice if there is some but that’s optional. The true mission of these systems is to keep the minorities in false happiness and promote false achievement long enough to get these people to the age of majority and out of the system. Along the way we see the false grading and the unearned bogus superlatives (“wonderful” is my favorite).

Many minority parents see through this and keep their kids clear of these “schools”. Mine did and so did all their friends. Patrician Whites laugh at the notion of putting their kids anywhere near these systems.

Brave New World.

Your description of the enrollment system speaks for itself, and the extra funding isn’t chopped liver either. It’s understandable that the school climate is likely to be more positive than in a true public school, so in that sense I’m not casting it in a negative light. It’s the issue of comparing OMI to the Oakland schools that are not able to implement a similar winnowing process that’s wrong.

I blogged about it last week:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/education/2009/07/27/school-funding-how-california-stacks-up/

I’m getting too personal and attacking Mikey Siegal? Isint that what everyone else does to Chavis, Lopez and others? Only when its to white liberals do ya’ll get testy. Oakland, Oakland, Oakland- I hope my people wake up and realize that this is in fact the problem. Lets ban those that are getting personal- i didnt even say crazy things like those that have been stated in the past by other bloggers!

I dont care though- cause most my folks in the deep East dont even read let alone read stuff like this!

Give the taxpayers their choice with their tax dollars is what I say- and if that means destroying public ed- so be it- its already destroyed generations!

People like Dan, Mikey, and liberals are the problem with minorities and yet we still follow them waiting for scraps. Shame on us!