*Posts marked as “Opinion” express more opinion than I usually express, and less hard data. Here is another opinion post if you are interested.
Yesterday, Great Public Schools Now offered $3.75 million to highly achieving LAUSD schools. GPSN is the initiative funded by Eli Broad to drive reform in LA schools by providing funding to highly achieving schools. The money is to be doled out in $250,000 chunks to schools who prove their excellence through an application process. It all sounds wonderful.
But I have a few questions.
First: Equitas Charter Academy received $2 million from GPSN earlier this year. And I wrote about how Equitas probably deserved the money. But did Equitas have to apply for that money and compete against other charters? When that happened in June, I did not hear anything about applications. And if they didn’t have to apply, why are LAUSD schools being asked to pour manpower and time into completing a lengthy application to compete for this money?
Second: $250,000? In what world is that enough money to expand capacity? According to GPSN, “The grants will be used to pay for school expansion—either through adding capacity for enrollment or adding a whole new campus.” $250,000 might buy you a couple bungalows but it ain’t buying you a whole new campus. Remember that $2 million donation they gave to Equitas? That was towards an $11 million fund raising drive for a new campus. $250,000 is a drop in the bucket.
Unless….
Unless they are suggesting that one school would essentially take over a second school. Is that what they are suggesting? It is unclear. We don’t even know what school replication would look like in LAUSD, so it is hard to say.
Final Question: What if the school they are seeking to replicate is a magnet? Magnets have been the talk of the town for the last few months. And GPSN has, in the past, highlighted Downtown Business Magnet, one of the highest performing high schools in the city.
I like that excitement. I am a product of LAUSD’s magnet schools (Community Magnet Elementary class of ’97, Palms Gifted Magnet class of ’00, Venice Language Magnet Class of ’04….I know, I’m younger than you probably expected). And now I am a magnet teacher. I am a big fan of magnet schools.
But the concept of magnet schools seem to clash with GPSN’s own principles.
According to their website, GPSN supports “the right of every child to attend a high-quality public school in his or her neighborhood.” However, Magnets are about busing kids across town to integrate. That’s why they were founded in the first place – opt in busing. At the magnet school I currently teach at, about 40% of my current students do not live in the neighborhood (based on my class survey).
Don’t get me wrong: I think that GPSN giving money to LAUSD is a great idea. I just have so many questions. And that leads to the most important question:
Which schools will apply?
Why don’t you contact me directly and ask for the RFP so you have answers to your questions?
I would welcome an opportunity to chat
Hello there-
I would love to chat! I’ll email you when I am free. Got some Algebra to teach.
-BF
Ms. Castrejon, Why isn’t the RFP on GPSN’s website?
Hi Sarah! We are having some technical difficulties with our page; it should be up later today!
I’ve weighed in here before, but my sentiments remain much the same. As for GPSN and their money, hey go at it. Have a good time. It ‘aint going to hurt. And I’m not going to start criticizing how they spend it. I would target programs at traditional schools that have shown progress, but that’s me. GPSN’s money is gravy. The problem is when the public starts mistaking the gravy as the main dish, or even as the appetizer. In other words, drinking the Kool-Aid. Nerd, I am not a big fan of Magnet Schools as they are currently being used. My take is simple: 1. They are not being used to integrate. They are being used as safe havens for the parents who are wise to how the game is played. Should I send my child to a school full of other families like ours (serious, motivated, achieving), or should I take my chances with the school full of the rest (i.e. the traditional school)? 2. Should we in our public policy be devoting time/money to creating safe havens or should we spend that time/money on strengthening our traditional schools? This is really the question. It is a “what side are you on” question. 3. Before you say that you would do both, let me beat you to the punch. I would do both, too. But I would scale back Magnets big-time (and Charters, but that’s a different story) and make them largely achievement-based. 4. Do you want a society that chooses between schools for the haves and have-nots? That’s where we are headed. 5. Which side are you on?
I can’t see traditional schools replicating as GPSN envisions, at least not for $250K per year over 3 years. I’m guessing we may see more magnets with this money?