-We are at CICS Irving Park
-It is random lottery with sibling preference
-They are required by law to inform parents of each teacher’s credentials. I just filled out the form the other day (they sent it to me, I did not request it)
-My son is in kindergarten and already reading 20+ words, speaking spanish and doing first grade math. They are not even teaching that at the neighborhood school (we started there)
-Yes, it’s selective enrollment but only in the most specific sense (i.e. they don’t just accept anyone)
-They wear uniforms (we love this!)
-They have a positive reinforcement system that rewards kids in a big ceremony monthly for good behavior. My son is desperate to stay on “green” so he can be rewarded in the monthly “green team” ceremony.
-They have onsite aftercare, extended day, and extended year
-They test the kids regularly and offer differentiated lessons and homework based on the results.
-They have recess daily
-They have an involved parents organization

For us, the benefits of onsite after care, foreign language beginning in kindergarten, longer day and year, and uniforms were huge, especially since the curriculum compares to that of our friends kids in Skinner and Disney II. We are amazed at what he has learned in two months.

Like you, I would love to see a charter simply accept all students within a boundary – then we’d see how the model holds up because it is forced to service everyone like neighborhood schools. (We’ve already seen how selective traditional schools perform – very well.) Charters probably have positives to offer, but with the current setup and such poorly conceived research there’s simply no way to confirm it beyond trusting The Force.

I love your idea of doubling the teachers in a building, too. I bet that would be a real eye opener!

Ahhh, research geeks are good! Since CPS and charters currently compare themselves to neighborhood schools, do you feel that is an appropriate comparison?

Re: 1 & 2
Every charter school practices selective enrollment. So do Catholic schools and private schools. Though charter folk and proponents are defensive about this matter, it is in no way a value judgement – it is a plain reality. As I said before a blind, random lottery sounds nice but does not equate to the non-selective nature of neighborhood schools which are required to accept all comers.

A school that accepts every student from the neighborhood who walks in the door is non-selective. A school that does not accept all students is, by definition, selective. We can debate what the outcome of those selection procedures are and how they impact school environment, test scores, student learning, etc., but on the matter of selecting students there is no debate. Charter schools are selective.

Because charters are selective it is inappropriate to compare them to neighborhood schools. Unfortunately, charter operators, politicians, and the media routinely make the mistake of doing so. On the other hand, just because charters are selective does not mean they should be compared to magnets because the selection processes can be quite different.

Some charters require more than an application to be enrolled. Required interviews, mandatory parental trainings, and parent-student contracts come immediately to mind, as do fees and fines. Likewise, selection can and does take place after the school year has started. See my KIPP example above for an obvious illustration.

Even with the presence of a random blind lottery, nearly every charter selects, at a bare minimum, for students with motivated and involved parents.

Re: 4
Yes, some charter schools have wait lists. Some don’t. And The Choir Academy closed not because of declining students but due to their inability to acquire private financing to supplement the tax dollars they received. (The ability to augment public funds with private dollars is one of the reasons a few Noble charters have done quite well -money allows for the ability to attract and retain top teacher talent, invest in incredible facilities and technology, and develop very slick, professional advertising and public relations.)

1. Charters cannot (and should not) be compared to magnet schools. Magnet schools can selectively enroll students. Charters cannot do this in the least bit.

2. Charters admit students based upon the submission of an application and the result of random, blind lottery. The only preference that is given is for the siblings of currently enrolled students.

3. Charters in Chicago tend to focus on providing choices and services for low-income families for the simple fact that these families don’t often have the level of education choice that other families do.

4. Most charter schools have a HUGE waitlist. The only exception to that to my knowledge is the Choir Academy, which is closing this year due to dwindling enrollment.

5. The suggestion that Montessori classrooms lack structure is patently false. Montessori classrooms have schedules. They have work and assignments. The biggest difference is that students are taught at a level they can understand…