Achievement First leaves "most vulnerable children to fend for themselves"

Author: Monica Teixeira de Sousa, Associate Professor of Law at New England Law | Boston

The following statement was presented before the Board of Regents at the RI Department of Education on January 5, 2012.

Author's note/summary: Last night I testified before the Rhode Island Board of Regents in opposition to Achievement First's application to open two charter schools in Providence and its plan to draw students from the communities of Cranston, North Providence and Warwick. As you may know, these elementary schools would take the form of mayoral academies and would not be subject to any oversight by the school committee of Providence. My objections centered around the impact these schools will have on the most vulnerable populations of students throughout the four communities affected by the application.

* * *

My name is Monica Teixeira de Sousa. I’m a resident of Cranston, a parent, a graduate of the Pawtucket Public Schools, and a professor of Education Law. I’m here today in opposition to Achievement First’s application to open two elementary schools in Providence and its plan to draw students from Cranston, Warwick and North Providence. My concern is with the impact this application will have on the most vulnerable students throughout the four communities affected by this application.

Achievement First’s mission according to its website is to serve the most disadvantaged children. But the approach taken by Achievement First is to ask that those truly disadvantaged students self-select into their educational offering. Research and common sense tell us that the children least likely to take advantage of an educational offering are the same children most likely to need extra assistance. This is why legislatures across the country long ago saw fit to make education compulsory. The Rhode Island legislature agrees and recently voted to expand compulsory education to age 18. In so doing, it sought to restrict a student’s choice to drop out of school.

Achievement First’s talking points, press releases and website reveal a very limited understanding of the low-income families it seeks to serve. Achievement First assumes that it’s helping the most disadvantaged students if it enrolls some significant number of students from low-income families. But all low-income families are not the same in the important ways that predict educational success. Some families are involved in their children’s education and/or have high academic expectations for them and some do not.

We know that parent involvement in a child’s education is one of the most powerful predictors of educational success. It is clear that a lottery system admissions process results in enrolling those students who have parents or guardians who are willing and able to take the affirmative step of placing their child’s name on the list. This seemingly small act is no small feat for many families who may be experiencing crippling problems such as illness, domestic violence, and homelessness, among others.

If Achievement First was here to offer extra help to these students, to perhaps use some of the money they spend on lobbying efforts to pay for academic and extracurricular offerings, or additional guidance counselors and social workers to aid our most vulnerable students, I would be more sympathetic to their struggle. Instead, they will siphon the students with the most involved parents, and due to the revised funding formula, they will also drain fiscal resources from our public schools, while leaving the most vulnerable children to fend for themselves.

Instead of trying to find ways to provide the children who have the least with more, Achievement First and its supporters have devoted an inordinate amount of resources to deprive those children with the least of the little that they do have. The Commissioner and the Board of Regents have a duty to all Rhode Island children, not just the ones whose parents are able to be here today on their behalf.

I urge the Board of Regents to consider this application in light of what is best for the most vulnerable children in our state, and to remain firm in their original opposition to the application by Achievement First and the Mayoral Academies.

Thank you,

Monica Teixeira de Sousa

January 5, 2012

Tags:

Achievement First