Today I unveiled my sweeping education reform proposal and I want to share it here with the folks at Blue Mass Group. I will be honest, for me public education is very personal. I currently have 3 children attending the Boston public schools.
I’m concerned that the ongoing debates about our zone policies have overshadowed the more important debate which is how we are going to transform our failing schools and raise the rates for graduation and college completion.
My plan seeks to revolutionize the way we educate our children and that can only happen through bold leadership and drastic action. This is about our future leaders and our city’s ability to compete in a global economy. There’s no room for bureaucracy, red tape and blame. We need to stop fighting with teachers and principals and start fighting to deliver the best education to our children. Reform, results and responsibility are the cornerstones of my proposal. Please take a moment to view. I welcome your comments and feedback.
-Michael Flaherty, Candidate for Mayor of Boston
How far does this belief extend? Do you believe that money should follow a dropout in order to fund GED, work skills and other kinds of programs until a student is a certain age? Should that student be able to spend (through the Boston Public Schools, only on approved programs, etc.) the equivalent of “his/her money” until a certain proficiency or age is met?
<
p>I know that the dropout rate has decreased from 8.9% in the 2006-2007 school year to 7.6% in 2007-2008 but that’s still 1,396 kids last year. Individual schools in Boston range from a 0% dropout rate to a 30.5% drop out. It seems to me that while the situation may be improving (trends from 2000-2008 do not indicate sustained change) this issue deserves some attention in your education plan.
<
p>I read the plan (and I read it… not just skim). I can only see the word dropout once, and no additional discussion around the dropout problem, which includes no discussion of racial inequities in the dropout rate (let alone the schools). The policy simply says:
<
p>
<
p>I do understand that it’s possible that your “educational brief” is intended to in fact be brief. The question does remain though, do you believe that section II (the section titled “Money Follows the Student”) of this brief is true for not just charter school students, but for students who drop out out of our schools but are still young Bostonians?
The money needs to remain in the system and used to discourage dropouts. Of course, my real preference would be to require education until one’s 18th birthday or HS graduation, whichever comes first, thus rendering discussions of dropping out more or less moot.
I’m pretty sure Boston has been discouraging dropouts for some time now. It seems to me that these kids ought to remain the responsibility in some capacity of the school system so that they’re more apt to become successful, contributing members of the community.
<
p>This “money follow the student” thing seems to be a “money follows the white student from a middle class household if both parents believe the student should be in a charter school” only. Though that’s an exaggeration, it seems to be a small one.
If I did I would also support vouchers, which I don’t. My point was entirely about dropping out and I firmly believe that students should be required by law to stay in school until they graduate or turn 18.
Migraine, I think that a student who drops out should still have the money “held” for him/her. For a reasonable period.
<
p>The Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews wrote a column about my idea last year.
Why do we need to create a new charter system for schools? The argument is always some variation of these run better. If that’s the case why don’t we simply enact the necessary laws and policies to run the existing public systems more efficiently? The same goes for vouchers (which Migraine didn’t mention, but follows the same logic about strictly following the student). If private schools are supposedly better then why don’t we learn from them to make public schools better?
I understand the idea that charter schools are a way to experiment with approaches to public education, but so are pilot schools — and pilots aren’t as disruptive of the budgeting process.
<
p>Though there’s more to say on this plan, the basic deal with charters is that they have all the resources that go to a public school, and only a portion of their obligations. Charters have to do less work with the same money, and when they don’t fail, advocates call them a success.
<
p>It controlled for the issue of “Creaming” — ie, which students attend, which parents are motivated to seek charters, which kids leave charters — by following all the kids who applied, and then, after the random admission lottery, tracked the winners (who got to attend those schools) and the losers (who ended up elsewhere).
<
p>The Harvard and MIT economists who did the study found that the inner-city kids who won the lottery made big gains. Not so the lottery losers. Not so the pilot winners.
<
p>You can certainly argue that MCAS is a flawed measure — I know you’ve argued that.
<
p>But since MCAS is currently our only measure, it’s worth noting that charter kids seem to be making big gains on that sole measure.
<
p>2. Also, I work for a charter and am on the board of a pilot school. Sab, you’re off target about the money.
<
p>Pilot schools get more per student than charters. I’m literally looking at our budgets for next year.
<
p>3. Also, charters get less than the district average.
<
p>You might reasonably argue that charter schools have “easier” students (I’d disagree) and that therefore the less money is justified. Fine.
<
p>But the charters get less per student, that deal is codified in state law. Boston spends about $16,000 per kid per year, all in. Charters get about $12,000 to $13,000. My school happens to raise money to cover the difference. But most don’t.
albeit well-designed and compelling, does not “prove” anything. I read the whole thing a while ago, reviewed it today, and remembered how well I liked the design.
<
p>My question to you, GGW, what were the limitations of the study and how could they affect the findings? (No fair peeking).
<
p>Mark
<
p>Bad pilot schools do not, just like traditional schools. They tend to have (endless) “improvement” plans.
<
p>So it could be that pilot schools on the high end do well but their low-performers pull down the average.
<
p>2. Another limitation that I pointed out at a Harvard panel discussion….some pilot school leaders really have disdain for MCAS and might characterize their approach as more project-based.
<
p>So it could be that they are equally good at, say, generating kids who can succeed in college, but not as good on a test like MCAS.
<
p>Those are just two. The study itself acknowledges a bunch of other limitations.
<
p>3. I think one thing that charter supporters need to acknowledge from the study is that Kane et al found that both charters and pilots had a student population that, on average, arrived to the middle or high schools 0.1 or 0.2 standard deviations above the district average.
<
p>So while they were quite similar to the district, they were not IDENTICAL in terms of starting point.
<
p>That discussion is usually binary. Opponents say charters have easy kids to educate. Supporters say that’s not true. The truth seems to be…very slightly easier to educate kids.
<
p>The thing was, after arrival, the charter winners (on average) shot up to Brookline levels in MCAS, and the charter losers, pilot winners, and pilot losers actually either stayed the same or actually slipped down a bit.
Why didn’t you link to your own post about the study? Plenty of discussion about methodological questions, there. I don’t know what budget you’re looking at in particular, but the principle of budgeting is identical for the two schools. Where they vary is that a pilot has a set budget and an expected number of students, and if the numbers don’t meet expectations, it looks as if they have more per student.
<
p>As for whether charters have easier students, I would suggest the following: take a look at the proportion of overall number of transfers out of your school that are special education students. I bet it’s higher than your school’s population of special education students.
<
p>You also prove my point when you say
<
p>
<
p>If it’s flawed, it is not a good argument. Especially since one flaw is that if a school, say a charter school, is released of legal obligations that encumber district schools, and have more time and resources to teach to the test, they better get higher test results. Which they do, perhaps, barely if at all.
<
p>Doesn’t strike me as a compelling reason.
Boston spends $16,000 on an average kid?
You wrote…
<
p>
<
p>And I’m interested in where the other 49% goes? Is this number consistent throughout the state or only in the big cities? Funding of education reminds me of the water supply to many public buildings where the meter is running all the time but the sinks are always dry because of “leaks” in the building’s pipes. Let’s find the leaks and get water to the faucets so the money can be spent directly on education!!!
Things that money goes to not within the walls of the classroom:
<
p>special education
technology training and equipment
school libraries
speech
literacy
nursing
abuse support
community liaisons
guidance
bilingual support
gifted & talented support
school psychologists
<
p>That’s for starters…
… a 49% overhead rate is pretty good in almost any business.
Actually it’d be 49/51 percent overhead. Not great, but certainly not the worst I’ve seen in private business. Most business I deal with have overhead rates in excess of 100%.
Charters have a success rate that could be generously called “mixed”. My anecdotal reading is that they have longer hours for the teachers and so get the kids to do homework at school. The result is that they have mostly first-year teachers and turn them over every year.
<
p>A good classroom in Boston has 2/3 of the students prepared and the others can get extra attention from the teachers. Unfortunately the total population of BPS students is probably 3/4 unprepared and essentially unsupported at home. You can reshuffle these kids any way you want, but the results will be the same, maybe 1 or 2 grammar schools in each district which are “good”, and the exam high schools.
<
p>My particular district would make out well in the 5 zone restructuring but I don’t think it’s right to abandon the black neighborhoods. The charter approach is a technocratic whitewash versus the 3 zone system’s geographic whitewash. The real issue is the low incomes of the parents in the black neighborhoods. For a variety of reasons, these parents can’t help their kids with homework, make sure they are in bed at the right time etc.
<
p>The schools are the way they are because most of the parents are poor. The mayor has much more power over the economy in the city than the learning process.
I have two education papers on my site. One is a White Paper focusing on system-wide reform, and the other focuses on the dropout crisis, combating youth violence, preparing our future workforce, alternative educational programs, stronger transitional programs, reforming programs for English Language Learners and thorough monitoring of student performance. Both documents articulate my support for charter and pilot schools.
<
p>I wholeheartedly agree that we need to tackle the dropout crisis. With a four-year graduation rate hovering at 60% for the last five years, we are losing many of our children to the dropout crisis. The financial and social costs of the dropout crisis are enormous, making it essential for us to invest in alternative programs, GED programs and job training for at-risk youth.
<
p>I have always supported, and will continue to support, having pilot schools within the BPS because I see their flexibility and autonomy as important to the diversity of our school offerings. We should be looking for strategies to expand them, not restrict them.
<
p>However, Charter schools are an option that we can no longer ignore. This does not mean that charter schools are perfect. We need to continually monitor charters to ensure that they are bringing a diverse population through their doors. We also need to make certain the practices that work for our district public schools are replicated in the schools that are not enjoying the same successes and popularity. We can begin to do this by examining school assignment data in order to determine what parents are looking for when choosing a school for their child.
<
p>In case you did not already see this story in today’s Globe, here is an article that underscores the importance of having Boston – as well as Massachusetts – revisit the level of commitment and investment we are willing to give to charter schools.
<
p>
<
p>-Michael Flaherty, Candidate for Mayor of Boston
education policy is commendable. I get the impression you actually understand and believe in the reforms you suggest. This is not always the case. Based on my study and experience, I don’t think the administrative changes you suggest will do much to improve achievement, but I don’t see that they’ll cause much harm either.
<
p>If I were a resident of Boston, I too might want charter schools for my kids. Charter schools are not a systemic answer to education in the inner city, but they offer options for parents and students who have few, if any, good educational options. I don’t think students should be forced into failing school systems so they don’t get worth.
<
p>If I were a resident of Springfield, however, I’d be more inclined to send my kids to one of the many fine public schools outside of the district rather than one of its charter schools. As a teacher in a suburban school system, I know there are no charter schools in the Springfield area that can match our students’ achievement. Lifting the charter school cap, has an erosive effect on regular, successful public schools. That’s one reason I object to lifting the charter school cap.
<
p>I also object to the idea that innovation is somehow the key to charter school “success.” Offering expeditionary learning or a focusing curriculum on the fine arts is certainly an innovation, but there is no research connection between the two.
<
p>Mark
Maybe this was just tacked onto my reply for convenience’s sake but you didn’t address my point at all. I wish that meant I could vote against you but I’m sure the rest are just as clueless.
I agree. Our mayor plays a critical role in influencing Boston’s economic climate. But, if we don’t enable our city’s youth to take advantage of new job opportunities, we are failing not only
them, but our entire city. Please review my green jobs paper to see my ideas for capitalizing on the new “green” economy.
<
p>I was born in public housing in Boston. I do not believe that a person’s economic status reflects their capacity. It is true that poverty creates barriers to success, but we cannot let these challenges keep us from fighting for an equal, quality education for all of Boston’s children.
If other cities have been able to make large strides with this population I refuse to accept the status quo, and I know that Boston is capable of doing better.
<
p>-Michael Flaherty, Candidate for Mayor of Boston