Enticed by federal Race to the Top dollars, Massachusetts passed an important education reform law in 2010. But now, with that legislation in place, policymakers seem to lack the appetite for another round of significant change.
Take Governor Patrick, for example. He’s using the prospect of increased education spending to try to leverage a big tax hike, but hasn’t called for any important new reforms to the K-12 system. Nor has he displayed any interest in another charter school cap lift.
Comments
There must be charter school seats available now. Who's in the seats of all those "problem" students the charters are pushing back into the public schools now that MCAS season is upon us. We don't look at them as problems though. We are urban public school teachers and we teach everyone. Charters cannot make that claim. They enroll significantly less English Language Learners and Special Education students. The ones who are often challenged by MCAS. Mr. Lehigh...how about informing your public of the real story behind the charter "success"...The exclusion of many challenged students.
NinetyNinePercent, I'm affaird you're one hundred percent misinfomred about charter schools in MA. They do not select their students, nor do they "push" lower performing students back in to the "public" school system.
The facts are these:
- Charter schools are public schools.
- Charter schools operate on with less funding that traditional public schools (they only have the per student state funding and must pay their own rent for facilities).
- Students in charter schools, as a group, out perform those in traditional public schools on standarized tests.
- As of at least as of a year to ago in MA, there were more students ON waiting lists for charter schools than there were students IN charter schools.
The opposition to charters has one source - the teachers' unions. It works for everyone else.
I wish the teachers unions worked as hard at educating students as they do at featherbedding and stifling reform.
Any school assignment process that allows a measure of selection, or self selection, improves student performance. The dirty secret of education is that it's not the teachers that determine a student's chance of success, it's their classmates, and let's stop pretending otherwise, so we can really address the problems of public education. All well-intentioned philosophies to the contrary, we need to focus on the kids who want to succeed, and incentivize accomplishment, not mediocrity.
Most (all?) charters in MA conduct admissions via a lottery.
"...lottery...." ...and then they counsel out the undesirables once the parents show up with the students. They do this quickly and effectively. If you are unaware of that Nat please adjust your view as needed.
This comment has been removed.
First of all Scot, could you explain how the effect of patents are ruled out or "controlled" in a study? I don't believe it can be done, regardless of the claims of the researchers. But assuming it's possible, just because you have a longer school day does not necessarily mean that better academic performance. The Globe just did a story the other day about the problems with student test scores over at the Boston Renaissance Charter. I believe the story said the school is now on probation. Well-established charter school; what up?
Effect of parents not patents... Doh.
The study followed the performance of of two groups of students. The first were students who won the lottery and were placed in charter schools. The second group were students who also applied to charters, but were not chosen. Both sets of parents were "involved" in this context, making the relative performance of each group of students comparable.
Scotts main argument seems to say that longer school days produce results. This would not seem to be necessarily a charter school endorsement per say.
Why do unions oppose this, if its really about the children?
The purpose of any union is to look out for the interests of their members. There is nothing wrong witih this. The problems arise when we (parents, legislators) pretend otherwise and assume teachers' unions have the quality of education as their primary goal.
Unions do NOT oppose longer days... just uncompensated time! Most teachers already spend significantly more time (8-12 hrs/day + weekends) on the job, if not in front of children!
You want to enroll your child needing special education services in a charter? Don't expect the teachers to be licenced or to have degrees from college in that particular subject area. I'm looking at the web-site for PAC-Rim. Looks like about 30% of the teachers are special ed certified or have a special ed endorcement or degree undergraduate or graduate.
And that's 30% of the special education teachers...or "learning specialists" as they are described.
If you have doubts about charter school teacher credentials, then by all means don't apply. But why must we actively "cap" enrollment for those families who believe charter schools offer a better alternative?
I'm a retired union public school teacher. Every few years, I'd receive a few students who were asked to leave a charter school because of low grades or discipline problems. Most of them were Special Ed. kids. Also, in Salem, MA, the Saltenstall elementary school tried longer school day and year for a few years. That now might end because there is NO difference between the achievement of their kids and the kids in the rest of Salem schools. There's a place for Charters, but their not the whole answer. This journalist is all excited about two surveys, like a couple of the posters seem to be. Charter schools have to be judged individually, by the parent. That's how I advise people who ask me.
A retired union public school teacher doesn't know the difference between "their" and "they're". I do know the difference but then I'm a product of parochial schools. Enjoy your retirement. It's good that you're retired. Good for the kids, I mean.
Correcting spelling on a comment page is so incredibly lame. I have my Masters and it "ain't" in teaching and I misspell all the time on the comment section due to rapid typing and fingers running ahead of the brain. So if you object to the individuals idea that's one thing, objecting to his typing is nothing more than a vapid response.
Choosing between the Republicans and the Democrats is choosing between the party of mean and stupid or the party of corrupt and lazy. Massachusetts has chosen corrupt and lazy.
Funny, if off-topic. I would argue that the issue is that the 'unwashed masses' and the politicians who pander to them are all mean, stupid, corrupt, and lazy, but some have D and some have R as a listed affiliation. MA has chosen D, but there is not lack of mean and stupid in the D camp. Other places have chosen R, and are filled to overflowing with corrupt and lazy along with mean and stupid.
As to the charter schools issue I admit I am not qualified to comment. Like you I am the product of parochial schools, where the focus was college prep. I get the purpose, though. I seem to recall there was a time when trade schools flourished for those who aspired to learn a trade, such as carpentry, plumbing, etc. Lumping everyone into one school model, and judging a school system based on standardized tests only encourages 'learning for the test.' I've seen that even in medical school students who have no interest in a topic beyond the medical board exams, and rely on their ability to look it up in the PDR afterwards. That model doesn't produce the best physicians, or the best scientists, or even the best cab drivers (how many of them even remember who has right of way at an intersection?). Even if a longer school day merely provides a study room so the kid can do homework that seems an improvement. If charter schools do that task better why not encourage it (perhaps I am going out on a limb but I think you would agree with that sentiment).
Earlier you personally attacked a retired teacher on account of an editing error. However, you did not put a comma before the conjunction "but" in your nasty compound sentence. I'm glad you were never a teacher because you are simply a condescending and arrogant charlatan. Go back to "grammar" school.
This is a free country. Charter schools should be available to the families that want them. But not one dime of my taxes should go to fund them.
Uh, we have those already, they're called 'private schools'.
Uh, geolovely, private schools are only available to those who can afford to pay for the students education twice: once with their taxes and again in the form of private school tuition.
My list of the critical factors in student achievement: 1. Natural gifts 2. Peer pressure to succeed 3. Parental involvement 4. Quality of teachers 5. Physical environment Length of day or year, within reason, is irrelevant, as is a lot of other issues parents and educators quibble about. Charter schools, through their inherent winnowing process, allow people with #3 to ensure more of #2, and give them the warm and fuzzy sense that they have affected #4. The only thing different in a private school is your cash outlay directly determines #5.
With all due respect, I believe the "inherent winnowing process" of which you speak is a figment of your imagination. It simply doesn't exist in any charter school I'm aware of.
I have worked at two charter schools, one excellent, the other not (since closed) and can say that the lotteries were all above board BUT students were very much counseled out if they could not handle the rigorous program OR if they had behavior problems, the parents were given option of withdrawing the student to avoid an expulsion on their record. I have also visited two charters that explicitly stated to me that they did not want special education students and denied services so parents would take them out.
While it is fun for some to blame the public schools and teachers for poor performance of students the very structure of the statement seems to imply the problem. The "poor performance of students". You have to have a desire to learn. You have to believe that learning will take you someplace, anyplace, not necessarily financially or in any economic sense, but you have to believe that it means something. Why do students think learning is such a waste of time. I'd suggest you simply look around you. Look at your culture. Do we value education? Do we place the "intellectual" up on a pedestal? No. We have a deep seated culture rejection of learning. Remember pinheads? Intellectual elites? Academic snobs?
At every turn in the political and cultural spheres we see learning, science, edcuation and just plain smart people demeaned by our culture. We don't have a culture that values learning. What in the world do you expect. You even slam teachers at every opportunity. This is not to say that they can't be criticized but it goes beyond criticism. If you say those who teach are in an economic sense infereior to the "private sector" if you say teachers are inept, incompetent, if you say those at the university level are out of touch, effiminate intellectual snobs. Do you really think a teenager will think learning is important? You need to think back to when you were a kid. Who wants to be a nerd. Change the way learning is presented and you might change the results.
attaturk, you raise some good points about culture, but the charter school students also exist within that culture, and yet as a group seem to be performing very well.
Only slightly better. That is our goal? Slightly better.
why is the left so against our kids having options to get the best possible education?
Why does the right oppose science. Oppose spending money on education. The issue isn't left or right. The issue is the very value of education itself.
begolging, the simple answer of why some (not all) Democrats oppose charter schools is because charters are non-union schools and many politicians cannot retain office without the support of the teachers unions.
attaturk, you should get to know a few more conservatives. It might change you opinion of us.
For every dozen competent, sensitive child-centered educators there are a few, very few, terrible teachers. At tax time or anti-authoritarian rants it is easy for anonymous bloggers to bash a public school teacher based on the one lemon in a orchard of fruitful sweet choices. Yes- we teach all children regardless of behavioral, academic, or severe health issues. Yes- we want a living wage and are glad that
In the non-union world we get to fire "terrible" employees. We even get to part ways with the merely mediocre. That is one reason, IMO, charters do a better job. They're able to develop a stronger teaching staff because the can effectively manager teacher performance.
Well said, Nat.
It appears to me that the BTU leadership has done a great job for its members; short school days for great pay and benefits. It also seems like they have imposed work-rules that while benefitial for the union, are not so for the student or tax payer. Samual Gompers would be proud of the BTU. But, we are not asking them to build cars, we are asking for partners to educate children. As for the administration, they continue to perpetuate an antiquated management model dependent upon a bloated central office. Further, the personel decisions leading to weak principals in charge of schools, only serve to provide legitimate reasons for the BTU to resist change. After all, who would want their careers determined by people who have personal, financial issues and are basically inept? Urban social issues no doubt impact the schools, but there is an every increasing body of work that supports the alternatives and they cannot be ignored. There is no getting around the basic logic that a shorter school day negatively impacts a child's learning potential.
Collective bargaining began in 1967 and that professionals with higher salaries weren't the first to be let go because of fiscal austerity. Parochial, private, and charter schools seem like an easy answer for those hoping to avoid " the dreaded public school". Test scores it seems must surely go up when you leave those " low achievers " behind. In the words of that old song" It ain't necessarily so" I love public school education because it is our best hope for diversity and educational opportunity for all.
Yes but I'd still move out of Boston if I had school age children.
Professionals don't bargain collectively and better professionals command higher fees (or in the case of commissioned military officers, earn promotion based on merit) than mediocre professionals. Professionals are not paid based on a collectively bargained contract that sets pay based solely on a combination of seniority and credentials. Professionals are doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects and commissioned military officers. That's about it. Professionals don't have tenure. There are no step increases for professionals. You can call yourself a professional but that doesn't make you one.
et rid of teachers unions and install some real competition and i bet schools would improve
Pay them a lot more as well.
It is widely reported that Washington D.C. spends more on education per pupil. Chicago teachers on average earn more than any other district in the country. Clearly spending more is not the answer.
In all schools, there will eventually be students who commit egregious offenses, who are charged with felonies, and so on. If the student is in a district school, the district must find another placement for the student and is committed to continue to pay for the education of the student. This is true even if the student is expelled from the original school.
How does that work in a charter school? I'm asking because I truly don't know. Can a charter school expel a student without incurring any continuing expense to educate that student, and instead fill the seat with another student who will not require additional expensive services? If so, this is one factor that makes it unfair to compare the two systems.
The study mentioned in the article did not compare the performance of all students in each kind of school. It studied a set of students in charter schools vs. those that applied to charters and didn't get selected in the lottery. If the is a difference in the expulsion rules for charters, I don't see it having a huge impact on this population of students.
I'm still trying to figure out why so may people are saying "you can't compare the two" rather than asking "why do charter school students seem to do better?" I get the sense (not with you, justafarmboy, but in general) that some folks are affaid of the answers.
In a charter kids are booted and not replaced. In public schools we can get kids all year long. On the other hand charters do not "backfill" the seats of those who do not cut it. It's called success by attrition. Additionally, charters do not accept many kids in need of special education and English language learner services. Many have a suspension rate that is 5-7 times higher than the average in BPS (which is 5%). I could go on and on, please research what goes on at many charters. The argument that charters lift overall performance of city kids is wrong. That's like saying if we lift the cap on how many Latin schools can be opened than we will lift achievement. Much like Latin school many charters only teach a certain type of kid. Let's be honest. Lastly, all these disgusting union-busting company stooges who write broad vitriolic statements about teachers unions know this: MA is considered the #1 ed state not only in the nation, but if we were a sovereign country we would be tops in the western world. All the top ed states are unionized. The non-union ed states are clumped at the bottom. Yes, unions do have an effect on education. I'm a teacher. What do all these other "experts" do for a living? Let's have some transparency.
I love it when teachers get bashed because of summer vacation and pay. This is irrelevant to the discussion. Teachers will stay longer and they'll work summers but parents and politicians do not want this because they'll have to PAY for it first of all, and it will interfere with THEIR vacations, and their kids sports and their kids piano lessons. And I stand by what I said about charter schools - if they all become charter schools then none of them will be charter schools, and the best students and parents will opt for the lotteries at the best schools. Self-selection will always work that way and the "worst" students will always be accepted with open arms elsewhere - elsewhere being that school that everyone loves to complain about!
Saying "This is irrelevant to the discussion" doesn't make something irrelevant to the discussion. You'd have to say "This is irrelevant to the discussion because (fill in the blank)." Where did you learn about making a logical argument? Public school, probably.
Dude - you completely ignored everything else in the post, which just happens to answer your reply. And I'm still waitin (spelled incoreectly on pourpoise) for your expert analysis on what teachers should be paid. Again, babysitter pay per student would be a pay increase since you seem to think teachers ain't professionals. (The ain't was on purpose since you seem preoccupied with spelling, punctuation and such.) Gotta love teacher bashing! Cheers!
In the column and mentioned by commenters is the assumption students applying but not accepted to charter schools eliminates the "parental involvment" condition. That doesn't fly. Just because you chose to put your kid on a list DOES NOT PROVE a parent gives his child daily backup and monitoring that produces a great student usually.
@pvalen, ...and just because your child won a seat in a charter lottery it doesn't prove you're more likely to provide a child "dialy backup and monitoring" than would a parent who didn't win that seat.
The simple truth is this: there's a growing body of evidence to support the assertion that public charters, in general, educate better than traditional public schools. There is very little hard evidence to the contrary.
Scot - You have been remakably silent?
He is probably out shoveling.
This comment has been removed.
According to officials from City University of New York, a full 80 percent of high school graduates in New York City who are headed to CUNY colleges can’t read properly, write or do basic math when they graduate.
Unions
IMO, it's not the union's fault. It's their job to get the best deal for their members. IMO, the accountability rests with our elected officials and their appointees who continue to support a socialized, static education system.
The benefits of school choice are playing out every day in charters across our state, and the evidence of that is in plain sight to anyone approaching the topic with an open mind.
anyone approaching the topic with an open mind.
Not exactly a strength of the educated left. Just loook at entitlements.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
Fewer special education students, more than half of all charter schools are owned by for-profit corporations. The charter schools pay their teachers less than many public schools. The result: charter school teachers leave after a couple of years for more lucrative careers in the public schools and the charter school teachers who remain are organizing unions!!!
<<more than half of all charter schools are owned by for-profit corporations>>
And there's no more damning accusation than being for a "for-profit", eh?
Your attempt to impugn the motives of those who run charters is incredibly misleading. Even when run by a for-profit corporation a charter school must be setup as non-profit entity and is completely subject to the state's education department.