Last week, the senate voted to defeat a bill that proposed to raise the current cap on charter schools in 29 districts. Beginning in 2017 the cap would rise from 18% to 23% of those school districts’ spending.
Before the vote, we heard from parents, advocates, students, and organizations on both sides of the argument. We sat down with whoever was willing to talk about the bill and what it would mean for students in the Commonwealth and the future of our public education system.
We went into all of these conversations with the goal of answering one essential question: what is our end game in expanding charter schools?
In 1993 when the Massachusetts Legislature voted to create charter schools, the intent was that charters would experiment with new practices for educating our children. Originally, it was intended to take the successful practices developed by charter schools and use them in the district public schools.
Today, charter schools are promoted not as collaborators with public schools, but as competitors in a marketplace where test scores take the place of profits. In this market, there are rewards for schools that can avoid students who are likely to score low. That was never the intent.
If we keep raising the cap on charter schools, more district schools will go out of business, concentrating students who face the biggest challenges in a shrinking number of district schools while extra resources go to the charters.
We will be driving a wedge deep into our communities, pitting students against each other, and effectively declaring that it is acceptable to invest in some kids while divesting from others.
That is not the answer. And that is why we believe this bill, and this issue, cannot move forward without addressing the serious implications that a dual system of public education will have on our children for generations to come.
The bill that we debated undoubtedly has merit, not least because it has sparked the important conversation about innovative ways to make charter schools more inclusive while providing funding for district public schools. But the proposed cap lift would not begin to take effect for 3 more years. Let us not make hasty choices.
Let us instead step back and consider how we can incorporate the best ideas from all schools to educate all of our children, not only to score high on standardized tests, but to develop into responsible and capable adults, ready to take their places in a complex world.
Let’s keep our eyes on 100 percent of our students, not 18, or 19, or 23 percent of them.
Senator Patricia Jehlen (D- Somerville) and Senator Ken Donnelly (D- Arlington)
you ask the right question: “what is our end game in expanding charter schools?” I’ve asked the question here myself on more than one occasion.
Beyond proliferation and getting more money from public sources, the dirty little secret of charter schools is that there is no endgame. More recently, there has been a concerted effort to get a bigger chunk of public funds for charter school buildings. Charter schools undermine teachers unions, though that’s not usually the objective of individual charter school operators. It is the mission of anti-union groups (like the Walton Foundation) which push for charter schools. In other states, the charter school objective is money and graft, but thankfully, Massachusetts doesn’t have for-profit charter schools.
TWO of your assumptions could stand further scrutiny: 1) that there was a time when they were NOT meant to compete with public schools 2) that they have something to teach public schools, perhaps because they are seedbeds of innovation.
It’s worth checking out the actual Educational Reform Act of 1993:
The assumption that charter schools are innovative is enshrined in the law itself, in spite of the fact that Massachusetts had no charter schools at the time.
Although the law doesn’t explicitly say charter schools were intended to compete with public schools, this was certainly the case that was made in public discourse. That competition is alluded to in the phrase “to stimulate the development of innovative programs within public education.” The “stimulation” in question was not to be limited to charter schools; it was supposed to spread. Competition is also implied in “hold[ing] teachers and school administrators accountable for
students’ educational outcomes.” Charter schools aren’t being held accountable here; public schools are. The assumption at the time was charter schools would outperform public schools. My point here is that competition is written into the original law; it’s not a new development. The adversarial relationship was there at the beginning.
It remains to be seen if charter school “innovations” are transferable to public schools. The best research we have suggests that some charters produce better than average test scores when compared to public schools, some do the same, and some do worse. How do they get these scores? Relentless test preparation, longer school days, and “no excuses” discipline seem to be the most noteworthy charter school innovations. (I’m leaving out enrolling fewer special education and ELL students and the possibility that charters typically fail to graduate half of their students as other reasons for their test scores).
One of our best charters has pioneered the share-cropping model of tutoring.
If I understand you correctly, you’re asking that there be a bill that would automatically lift the cap in two years. Wouldn’t it make more sense to revisit that question when the time comes? Why a sunset clause on the charter school cap? If you want public schools to accept charters, a moratorium makes more sense. After they’re around for a while, they don’t attract that much resentment. They also provide a great place for suburban schools to poach teachers after they have had a few years of experience. Because one thing about charter schools is for sure, on average half their staff leaves every year.
You both work day after day as champions of policy change that advances social, racial and economic justice.
I’m not making trouble here. Just trying to understand who you think is on what side. If you read earlier comments of mine I am definitely conflicted on which side is right.
So as this is not a right/left issue, don’t know what to think.
You’re telling us that you have to know whether there’s a Left-vs.-Right divide on an issue, or you “don’t know what to think?”
Perhaps you’re not actually thinking…
Right= Bad
Left= Good
My point is that there must be bad guys here somewhere.
Sen. Jehlen came nowhere close to calling supporters of the bill names. She offered a very thoughtful diary on the subject and acknowledged it was a debate worth having.
BTW, thank you Sen. Jehlen for confirming that what I thought the original intent of charters was is not a figment of my imagination. I said the jury was out for a long time because I have seen public-private partnerships work in other contexts, but I think you’re right on what charters have become.
Because if she’s right, then charter proponents must be wrong.
Their actions must be unintentional or intentional.
So assuming proponents are not “misguided or misinformed”, they must be up to something, and therefore a-holes.
Just because so much political dialogue has degenerated into name calling and thinking of the opposition as the enemy doesn’t mean it has to be or should be that way. If anything we should work on reversing that trend.
I keep reading here that it’s moneyed interests looking to destroy teachers unions.
Doesn’t that make the legislators that are behind it shills for shadowy nefarious parties?
…or maybe they think it really is the best policy. I just don’t understand why you seem to be trying to start a brawl.
I went looking for the answer to m’guy’s question, and I landed on an interview on Bill Moyers’ show:
So there you go.
were one of left and right. In general, there isn’t a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans on education or charter schools. The Obama Administration has been a huge supporter of charter schools. The odious Rahm Emanuel is a huge supporter of charter schools. Neo-liberal Dems are huge supporters.
People support charters for different reasons. The charter school lobby promotes the interests of charter schools, trying to get whatever it can. Individual operators run the gamut. There are the Teach For America alumni who start charter schools to show the rest of us that all you need to do is have a well-educated (preferably in Ivy League) manager and data-driven management (lots of testing and test prep) to make schools effective. Other operators are just interested in running their own schools based on some sort of idea they have such as performing arts or immersion in the Chinese language. Parents have a multitude of reasons for wanting their kids in charter schools: for the unique curriculum they might offer; for an education away from a lot of inner city problems; for the mistaken assumption that charter schools are inevitably better than public schools. Charter school boosters tend to be 1 percenters. The Walton Foundation, Eli Broad, etc. In Massachusetts, the Boston Foundation. Among the boosters, there is a definite anti-union animus.
Thank you senator for your thoughtful rebuttal of myopic charter rhetoric. Sincerely, A Real Teacher.
Based on nationwide testing, Massachusetts students perform the best in the country, by a good margin. Based on international testing, if Massachusetts is counted as a country, its educational performance is among the top few systems in the world, in a very tight cluster with Singapore and a few others.
Since our public schools are about as good as schools get anywhere on the planet:
1. Why on Earth would we mess with them?
2. Why on Earth don’t other states that want to improve their schools study and implement what we do, instead of throwing money at unproven charter schools?
Ignorance, busting teachers’ unions, hatred of government, and crony capitalism are the only reasons I can see for this stuff.
Massachusetts residents are wealthier, have higher incomes, whiter, and have adults that are more well educated than the average American. Every single one of those is a good predictor for better performance in K12.
than actual test scores.
and any number of other results.
That was never whose intent?
the intent.
I don’t think that the attempt to limit charter schools will work because they do not affect 90% of the voters in this state. They primarily affect urban areas.
So why not try a different approach. I would argue that it is not constitutional to allow charters only in certain cities – it is unequal treatment. So why not open up charters to any community.
I have to believe that someone is salivating to open a charter school in Weston that would get the $25k per student that the town currently spends per student.
Once that starts to happen and most of the people in the state realize that charters are undermining their own public school systems, they will realize that charters are not the great thing they are portrayed as.
Too many suburbanites are used to high quality public schools thanks to higher property values and corresponding property taxes, and no matter how many Kerry/Edwards and Together we Can stickers they have on their Volvo’s and Prius’, they still think ‘those inner city kids’ deserve doe eyed Ivy Leaguer’s instead of experienced, union certified, professional teachers. They fail to recognize that one inevitably leeches of the other and that a two tiered educated system is intrinsically unequal. What might help is getting Weston style money infused into Chelsea style districts. That would be true education reform.
wanting to set up in Weston, which undoubtedly has more to offer than a charter school. There’s probably not enough of a market. These schools want to grow.
I agree that charters unfairly attack cities because where the political opposition is typically weak, if not supportive. JConway is right. Urban schools deserve more money, particularly the money that was promised but never delivered by the Education Reform.
I don’t know, I think that Weston (they actually spend $20k per student) would be very attractive to a charter school precisely because they spend so much. 20k to educate a wealthy student is probably way more than what is necessary. A charter school would just have to create a “specialized” curriculum (say, “math, science and art is smart!”) and I bet they could easily peel 10% of the kids away from the public schools, or maybe even pull in kids who attend private schools. They could focus on class sizes – according to Weston’s website, they have 19.3 kids per classroom in kindergarten, and 22 kids per class in grade 5. That’s awfully high, isn’t it? Maybe they could bill themselves as having the “best” teachers, and start claiming that the public school teachers are bad because half of them are below average. Or they could simply point out that the union in place prevents the “bad” teachers from being fired – but they wouldn’t have to follow such rules.
Just look at the Pioneer Valley to see how this could work: South Hadley has the Pioneer Valley Performing Arts school, and Hadley has the Chinese Immersion School. Those aren’t primarily serving “urban” districts – PVPA gets just 23% of its students from Chicopee/Springfield/Holyoke (with the most – 16% – coming from Amherst) and PVCIS has just 15% of its students coming from Chicopee/Springfield/Holyoke (with the most, 19%, again coming from Amherst).
When you look at the numbers and the per-community distribution, these schools aren’t necessarily that bad a thing – they are pulling people in from all over the area. Maybe this is a model that we should be looking at across the state as a way to break up segregation and to take the incentive to create high-priced housing as a way to class-segregate the schools. Is it right that wealthy Weston residents are pooling their segregated money to offer their kids a pseudo-private education whereas the people in Holyoke can’t do this? Is our class-based segregation model the right thing for the state?
Maybe we made a mistake when we created charters with an urban-centric view.
…they would list the subjects as Science, Math, and ART in the slogan so it could spell SMART:)
Hampden Charter School of Science or even SABIS. The former truly offer something not offered by public schools. If they were in Springfield, they might actually draw kids from beyond the city.
But teaching in East Longmeadow, I can tell you that you’re not going to peel away students to a STEM school. We already have AP sciences, etc. We also have better sports teams, which are also a huge motivator. Wilbraham and Longmeadow have even more. In the cities, my sense is that parents want their kids going to schools they deem safer and less distracted by the out-of-school factors caused by poverty. I’ve had students who went to SABIS and moved to EL for school reasons. In short, I don’t think charters can offer significant competition to good suburban schools.
I completely agree with you about the class-based segregation of education. The most politically likely way to address this issue is more money. The tentacles of segregation are deeply wrapped and armored in history and privilege.
It’s a simple fact that charter advocates simply ignore: they’re significantly more likely to be white than the average public schools, and they’re significantly less likely to have IEPs.
Charter schools are exactly what the segregationists want (they still exist, they’re called Tea Partiers now). A way for “the master race” to exclude those students who are black, disabled, or just average.
You could say the exact same thing about suburban schools.
In the Pioneer Valley, this is the racial breakdown of schools:
Monson: 94.6% white, 0.6% black, 1.9% Hispanic, 1.0% Asian
Southwick/Tolland: 91.8% white, 2.6% black, 3.7% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian
Belchertown: 91.5% white, 1.1% black, 3.3% Hispanic, 2.1% Asian
Granby: 90.8% white, 0.6% black, 4% Hispanic, 2.4% Asian
Westfield: 90.4% white, 2.1% black, 3.1% Hispanic, 3.0% Asian
Agawam: 88.8% white, 1.5% black, 5.2% Hispanic, 2.4% Asian
Hampden/Wilbraham: 86.9% white, 2.7% black, 5.1% Hispanic, 2.8% Asian
East Longmeadow: 87.4% white, 3.3% black, 4.1% Hispanic, 3.9% Asian.
Longmeadow: 83.1% white, 2.3% black, 3.9% Hispanic 8.1% Asian.
Ludlow: 88.2% white, 2.0% black, 7.2% Hispanic, 0.5% Asian
South Hadley: 82.8% white, 1.5% black, 8.7% Hispanic, 1.8% Asian
West Springfield: 70.7 white, 3.6% black, 16.5% Hispanic, 6.1% Asian
Chicopee: 60.2% white, 2.9% black, 31.9% Hispanic, 1.9% Asian
Holyoke: 16.8% white, 2.8% black, 78.7% Hispanic, 1.0% Asian
Springfield: 12.4% white, 20.2% black, 62.2% Hispanic, 2.6% Asian
I would say that those racial/ethnic distributions are as bad as 1960’s era urban neighborhood segregation, and maybe worse, because at least in the 1960’s, there was a pretense of “equal funding” within the same community, whereas now, since these districts are bounded by town lines, there is no such requirement. Because of that, a town like Longmeadow is free to fund their schools at 38% more than their “foundation” level while a poorer district like Springfield (at it’s Proposition 2.5 levy ceiling) spends 0.2% over its foundation.
suburbs is too broad. There’s a huge difference between Granby and East Longmeadow, for example. Many of these communities are not adjacent to any city. They also lack the culture of the true suburbs. Granby, Belchertown, and Monson are bedroom communities, but not suburbs.
Granby finally got non-elderly, low income housing, but as a very small farming town, we’ve never had many rentals, not because of zoning, but because there was never an economic reason for them. The same is true, I’m sure, of Monson and Belchertown. Belchertown, however, has a fair amount of rental property, though the poor there are more likely to be white. Ludlow has a lot of rentals and a growing low-income population. You left out Palmer, which certainly isn’t a city, but has a substantial low-income population. The reason is its industrial past.
I wouldn’t mind seeing kids bused to my school system. We have METCO in EL, but that those kids–though diverse in background–also tend to be self-selected. I also support more money for urban school systems.
I can’t speak for how Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, and Wilbraham stay segregated, but it’s not a simple matter for most communities.
Granby probably gets most of its money from the town itself, while MA small cities tax base can barely cover the municipal budget and the schools are close to 100% state funded. I know the most about Lawrence but I can’t image that it’s much different in many other MA cities.
I think that Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, and Wilbraham stay segregated primarily because they have only higher-end housing. They keep the prices high mostly via reputation and an almost cult-like sales pitch by their residents – I can’t tell you how many people have tried to convince me to move to “town”, and when people from these communities encounter each other, a weird circle-jerk often forms with the people telling each other how happy they are, and how great “town” is. It’s actually quite weird. They also have a great sales force in the form of realtors. I once had a friend who was looking to buy a home specifically in Springfield. I referred him to a realtor friend who lived in Wilbraham. She put the sales pitch on him and by the time he was through, he had bought in Wilbraham.
I also think that you have to look at migration patterns. Migration to the Pioneer Valley seems to stem from attending college here, locating here due to jobs, or lower-income ethnic-based immigration. The first two populations are largely white and have either money or earning potential, and the last population is more likely to be poor and more likely than not going to rent somewhere.
Without much rental housing, Longmeadow, East Longmeadow, and Wilbraham aren’t going to see most of the non-white migration, and they get almost 100% of the other migration. Gateway cities are no longer able to transition such immigrants to the middle class because the stepping-stone jobs (good jobs which can be held without an education, but allow you to put your kids through school) are scarce and the poverty has become too concentrated. The schools have a terrible reputation, and have been abandoned by anyone who has enough money to escape them. The economic segregation makes it that much harder for an immigrant child to use the schools to their advantage.
working class town, I can truly say that working in East Longmeadow was a bit of a shock. Maybe I was just ignorant, but I wasn’t aware of class growing up. One of my closest friends was a just a step above white trash. I never realized it until I was an adult. East Longmeadow has so much more money and so much more to offer educationally than Granby where I live.
Every time I drive through Springfield I notice what seem like nice places to live. I canvassed for Eric Lesser in a neighborhood off Page Boulevard. It wasn’t rich, and it seemed like some houses had become rentals, but I thought it was pretty nice. There are a lot of places like that in Springfield. Not rich, but nice residential neighborhoods. Why don’t people want to live there? I would guess its the schools, which would be fine, if they weren’t filled with the poor. Poverty is the core problem in our country.
I give you credit for living in Springfield. To me, it seems a good place to live.
Are you saying he is a segregationist Tea Partier?
If so I wonder if his Treasurer’s race opponents plan to use that.
to pick a fight, Merrimack.
In almost every thread there are bogeymen, and most of them are vauge or anonymous.
Anyone (not other posters, but those mentioned in the media) who has a view that is opposed by most of the posters here is not considered to have a different viewpoint, but evil motives (slight exaggeration added for humor), including but not limited to misogyny, bigotry, racism, classism, hatred of the poor, general dounchbaggery, etc.
Along comes charter schools, and many of its proponents are well known and fellow travelers with the opponents. I am wondering why no one is calling them out. Do they not think that they are evil? Could it be possible that others (Charlie Baker) might not be evil?
Everyone here decries the DeLeo cabal and other BMGer described DINOs, but never really takes it to them. Maybe that’s (failure to crticize) why things are the way they are.
If you use my specific example with the poster’s
Then apparently every legislator who wanted to raise the cap ascribes to those segregationist values.
not how I responded to you. Did you read my comments?
As far as commenters go here, we are the choir. Some of us are soloists. We have a lot of politically active, knowledgeable teachers (Pablo, Offner, Bob Gardener, Sabutai, Colum Whyte to name a few) here as well as informed non-educators (Fenway, JConway, Christopher to name a few). Would you go to Red Mass Group and expect posters to talk about the need to increase taxes any differently?
Charter schools are a neo-liberal policy idea. There are plenty of Democrats who support them. From Rahm Emanuel to Michelle Rhee to Barry Finegold. I guarantee that these folks have heard from true liberals, but for whatever reason, they disagree or don’t care. I was and am a fan of Paul Toner, the former president of the MTA, but teachers are pissed, an insurgency won the presidency, and Barbara Madeloni was elected. I’ve known Barbara for almost 20 years, and I can tell you that not only is she a true believer, she’s going to channel a lot of anger. I don’t know a teacher who is happy with the state of the profession or state and federal policy.
…for being a substitute teacher who also has a license?:)
If anything we were bashing Pioneer for stating that charter opponents are the George Wallace of today. Someone else pointed out that charters, since they explicitly lack the mandate to educate every student they serve and have wide latitude at composing their student body, are in fact, more segregated than some public schools.
I think your other point about small cities feeling the squeeze is spot on, but I don’t see how electing Republicans or building charters would solve for that x.
I for one think you are smarter and bring better perspective than certain Waltham denizens or fake used car salesmen we contend with, and miss having the centrist voice of Central Mass Dad and the center-right voices of John and Peter Porcupine as frequently as we used to. Sabutai, while decidedly center left, is also a great education commentator and knows a lot about foreign relations.
If you could run Weld style Republicans against every Jim Miceli, DeLeo, Donato, and Timilty we have in the General Court I would back them. If you could run Weld style Republicans against Lynch I might back them. But, there seem to be few voices of moderation left in the MA GOP these days.
Nobody here is a big Galvin fan and his GOP opponent should feel free to come on here and get BMG support for a more transparent and modern office, but I don’t see him doing so. Dan Winslow was a fun guy to talk to, though his voting record was a bit to the right of his rhetoric.
I don’t think I was necessarily pushing the Republican point of view or postulating on moderate R’s or lack thereof.
I might be suggesting that the R is bad, D is good code runs pretty strong here in MA, and this stifles real debate on the Charters because there are D’s on both sides and the people are confused.
So what? That doesn’t mean D is perfect.
totally wrong and damaging to a particular group?
From what I read here apparently not.
I like to look past labels and base my opinion on things like actions, words and results.
Some may remember that I used to be a charter proponent, union skeptic, and Bloomberg loving centrist at various points on this blog, and largely that was based on my own experience in the Cambridge schools which seemed resource rich with mixed results and being in the U Chicago bubble that treated issues of the Economist as a second hand gospel.
The thing is, if we look at actions words and results we see that most charters are equivalent to or receive worse results than some public schools, that Michelle Rhea’s reforms failed since they alienated teachers, that Rahm Emmanuel is flailing and failing at fixing Chicago’s schools largely by relying on privatization and charters, and ask a teacher-most will tell you they need the resources and charters don’t work. A good friend of mine from my Daley fellowship ended up a bigwig in TFA and is now fairly anti-charter, so people are waking up and recognizing it’s a lot of style over true substance.
those who think alike. Still, if you read my comments on charters, as critical as they are, I don’t blame Republicans. Democrats are as much to blame.
Since it seems like the only policy reform idea in education, to the point that ‘education reform’ has become a byword for a charter heavy-tough on unions approach. Ditto ‘school choice’ which used to mean something entirely different, but now largely means vouchers and charters.
I think those that are truly serious approach the issue with evidence and compassion. Diane Ravitch comes to mind as a national thinker, I think Sonia Chang-Diaz had a very balanced approach that would restore accountability to charters. She didn’t just shut the doors to them or ideologically view them as the panacea or the devil that advocates on both sides make them out to be. They are tools-assessing whether they are effective or not is critical when we ask ourselves if we want more.
That said, I really don’t think most Dems like charters. There are some very vocal Dems, like Andrew Cuomo, who are in love with charters. (Seems that the vulture capital folks who love Cuomo love charters.)
This is the first time the MA charter school industry has been rebuffed in their quest for more, and they are not happy. Senators Jehlen and Donnelly have been leaders in the effort Senator Chang-Diaz did a great job of balancing the interests of the charter school industry and the children in the public schools. In contrast, the House leadership pushed members into backing the charter school industry’s bill.
And sadly our incumbent Governor, and his likely replacement. But, we are making progress reclaiming the mantle of reform from the pseudo reformers.
Pioneer suggests that anybody opposed to charter expansion = George Wallace:
http://pioneerinstitute.org/charter_schools/worcester-telegram-gazette-easy-wrong-vote-on-charters/
Here’s the where the lie is:
The monied interests are the Boston Foundation, the Walton Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and Stand for Children.
And it’s funny how they talk about segregation because charter schools increase it.
… Let’s keep our eyes on 100 percent of our TEACHERS. Start by an across the board pay raise for every last one of them.
Then let us let the teachers keep an eye on the students.