Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

NYT Charter Article – Good Read

By

Challenges in Replicating Charter School Success – NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05…

Good read on this issue — points out that yes there are successful charters – far fewer than the pro-charter lobby would have one believe — but that the vast majority 83 do no better or in fact do worse than existing district schools. Interestingly the very successful ones have appeared to gain traction because of interest by wealthy and celebrity endorsers and donors who contribute substantial resources to the schools. Surprise surprise — fund schools properly and they have a better chance at success…. what an odd concept.  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. It is well worth taking the time to read this article, and there are some interesting points that usually don’t make it to print in the charter-friendly media.  First, there are high-flying charter schools that are always the focus of attention, but on average you will find that charter school students are not faring as well as students in traditional schools.

    <

    p>

    For all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

    Although “charter schools have become a rallying cry for education reformers,” the report, by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, warned, “this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well” as students in traditional schools.

    <

    p>In addition, there are two separate sections of the article that focus on the “free market” theory of charter schools.  Marketplace accountability does not work – the only way to ensure charter school quality is through a stringent accreditation system.  

    <

    p>

    Perhaps the sharpest knock on charters – one that even some proponents acknowledge – is that mediocrity is widely tolerated. Authorities are reluctant to close poor schools. Some advocates concede that the intellectual premise behind school choice – that in a free market for education, parents will remove students from bad schools in favor of good ones – has not proved true.

    “If you look at the hopes and dreams from 1992, it didn’t pan out that quality would rise because of marketplace accountability,” said James Merriman, chief executive of the New York City Charter School Center. “It turns out you need government accreditation to drive quality, and the human capital to make schools go. The hard lesson is, it is so dependent on human capital.”

    <

    p>When the Times describes how mediocrity is widely tolerated, and that regulators are reluctant to close poorly-performing charters, we can look at the Lowell Community Charter School.  From its inception ten years ago, the school has trailed the Lowell Public Schools in student achievement.  When the evidence cried out for non-renewal of the charter, the school proved to be “too big to fail,” as the Lowell Public Schools could not suddenly absorb 900 students from the charter school.

    <

    p>The Times article returns to Ohio for a discussion on the disconnect between market forces and student achievement.

    <

    p>

    In Ohio, the Cleveland Arts and Social Sciences Academy is not the kind of charter school that celebrities visit. It is, however, close to the norm for urban Ohio, where 60 percent of charter school students in the eight largest districts attend a school that earned a D or F on its last state report card, according to an analysis by Catalyst Ohio, an independent publication supporting school improvement.

    Even though the school did worse on the Ohio math and English exams than the average Cleveland public school, families did not flee Arts and Social Sciences Academy. On the contrary, enrollment has doubled in each of the past two years. It is a phenomenon often seen in academically failing charter schools when parents perceive them as having better discipline than district schools.

    <

    p>In Lowell, the charter school has a kindergarten cut-off age that is four months younger than the public schools, and offers an extended day program that is nothing more than free day-care.  Highly marketable, but the prime selling points have nothing to do with teaching and learning.

    <

    p>New England schools tend to have higher student achievement than anywhere else in the nation.  I think the accountability of local school committees, superintendents who are visible and accountable in their communities, all work to ensure high levels of student achievement.  Private boards of trustees and market factors just can’t do the job that democracy and citizen involvement have done so very well since the inception of American public schools.

  2. I commented on this article yesterday. At least I thought I did. It was in the Globe of all places. Yesterday. Bill Schechter posted on it. The Globe’s version is an extremely truncated version of the Time’s actual article.

    <

    p>I’m glad to see that charter schools are now paying for their 20-year ride in educational policy circles and the press, and the NYT article confirms what many of us have been saying all along.

    <

    p>With that said, I don’t think turn about is fair play. Public education has been treated unfairly, politically and intellectually, by the educational policy-making establishment and the press. However, we shouldn’t treat charter schools the way public schools have been treated.

    <

    p>Treating research as research and not merely as a punches exchanged in an ideological war over education is a good place to start. The CREDO study, which the article refers to is pretty authoritative, and its authors have successfully fended off attacks from charter school opponents. However, all research has limitations. We should acknowledge them. From the thoughtless acceptance of test scores as measures of learning to inherent limitations that any good study discusses.

    <

    p>For example, does anyone know, off the top of his or her head, what the limitations of the CREDO study were? How about the limitations of The Boston Foundation’s study?

    <

    p>What happened in Gloucester was political and wrong. It is representative of the arrogance written into 1993 educational reform legislation and the arrogance of policymakers at the state level (not to mention the nearly criminal arrogance of Arne Duncan). Neither the NYT article, the CREDO study, nor Gloucester means charter schools are completely bad.

    <

    p>While 95% percent of charter schools are hardly the laboratories of innovation ed reform claimed they would be, we can learn a lot from their mere existence, even if they are no better than the public schools. We should continue with that.

    <

    p>But most of all, we should turn educational discussion toward research and facts. We should face the complexity of education with the humility it deserves. An incremental approach focused on steady improvement taking into account local circumstances and desires is best. I think the tide–at least as far as dialogue–is turning. We should work to turn it in the right direction.  

  3. This is great.  NOW can the Patrick administration grow some stones and actually correct the multifarious mistakes and misdeeds that they made approving this idiotic concept of a charter school up here in Gloucester?  Now that we know for a fact that these schools and particularly this school is destined to be an expensive fail?

    <

    p>Or are they going to get Sting involved?

  4. as an incubator of new teaching techniques, unimpeded by hidebound methods in the traditional public school systems, and unfettered by union work rules, has a lot of merit, but its value diminishes for the most part by their ability to be academically and behaviorally selective who they admit. Public schools have no such leeway, and their results reflect that. If charters are so good, then let them be compared against the likes of Boston Latin and Latin Academy, two Boston public schools that are selective. How well would they do, then?

    • Hmm.  My understanding is that that’s not the case – most charter school must admit by lottery.  Sure, there’s some self-selection, but I don’t think they screen in the way your suggesting, which sounds more like an exam school.

      • Urban teachers are accustomed to the annual parade of behaviorally and academically challenged charter students re-entering public schools right before standardized tests…

        • that’s an entirely different point than the one to which I was responding, which was that charter schools’

          <

          p>

          value diminishes for the most part by their ability to be academically and behaviorally selective who they admit.

          <

          p>Can you elaborate on the point you’re making?  Those of us who don’t work in the schools will not be as familiar with the situation you describe.

          • As I said, many researchers believe that selection only really counts when standardized tests are scored.  What has become par for the course is for charters to accept a wide range of students in September, but kick a notable number of them out.  A large number of the expulsions seem to occur just before those students’ scores would be counted within the charter schools’ data.  Thus, there’s full credit for admitted students with behavioral or learning challenges, while not having to account for their test scores.  

            <

            p>Keep in mind, many of these places are for-profit (check out Boston-based Advantage Schools).  Think the motives at BP and Verizon don’t apply here, too?

            • Is there any data on this?

              <

              p>Also, from the Stanford study discussed in the NYT article, it doesn’t seem that this practice is doing much good!

              • … study measured.  Remember that we have lots of companies in the US where profits are measured differently when reporting to shareholders vs. reporting to the IRS.

              • I’ve heard this from quite a few Boston and Worcester teachers, but haven’t seen any data.  Don’t know if there’s any out there.  My point in bringing this up is that charters are managing equal outcomes despite better conditions.  Charter schools accomplish less with more compared to public schools — which tells me that they need much closer examination.

      • is a “creaming factor” to discuss charters.  Having a self selected lottery pool is creaming, but it’s less egregious than self-selected subject specialty, population-limited lotteries.  Perhaps we could come up with a 1-4 rating system.
        All charters cream from a population.  Some do it more blatantly than others; but the insistence that a lottery ensures the same population as regular public schools is baloney.  In urban settings (my experience) that means you are creaming from “kids whose parents obviously give a damn.”  And that alone is creaming.

        • The only way to make a lottery absolutely neutral would be to submit all the children in the district and select a random population and then let the charter deal with the students it gets — that’s what essentially happens in the public schools – The self-selection starts at the application process — then continues as children are either guided or pushed back to the district schools if they are perceived as not able to perform.  

Archives