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.
The Harvard-MIT study mentioned Mr. Lehigh's column has been commented on quite a bit. FYI, the full study may be found here:
https://folio.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/10244/726/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf?sequence=2
... and the following "Summary of Findings" can be found on page 9:
"Whether using the randomized lotteries or statistical controls for measured background characteristics, we generally find large positive effects for Charter Schools, at both the middle school and high school levels. For each year of attendance in middle school, we estimate that Charter Schools raise student achievement .09 to .17 standard deviations in English Language Arts and .18 to .54 standard deviations in math relative to those attending traditional schools in the Boston Public Schools. The estimated impact on math achievement for Charter middle schools is extraordinarily large. Increasing performance by .5 standard deviations is the same as moving from the 50th to the 69th percentile in student performance. This is roughly half the size of the black white achievement gap. In high school, the estimated gains are somewhat smaller than in middle school: .16 to .19 standard deviations in English Language Arts; .16 to .19 in mathematics; .2 to .28 in writing topic development; and .13 to .17 in writing composition with the lottery-based results. The estimated impacts of middle schools and high school Charters are similar in both the “observational” and “lottery-based” results.
Unfortunately, the results for Pilot Schools are more ambiguous and deserve further study .In the elementary grades, the estimated impact of Pilots was positive in English language arts (.09), but not statistically different from zero in mathematics. In the middle school grades, the observational results suggest that Pilot School students may actually lose ground relative to traditional public school students, with point estimates of-.05 standard deviations per year in English Language Arts and -.07 in math. However, our lottery-based results suggest that the performance of Pilot School students is not statistically distinguishable from zero .At the high school level, Pilot impacts are somewhat more encouraging but still ambiguous. The estimates based on statistical controls are positive and generally similar in magnitude to those of Charter Schools. However, the estimated impacts of Pilot high schools using the lotteries are not statistically significantly different from zero."
Scot Lehigh is wrong. Charters typically throw out about half their students along the way and keep only the good test-takers. That's how they end up with good "performance" and graduation scores. Their rejects are sent back to the public schools -- and thus, make them look worse. Charters are union-busting ploys -- and new frontier for hedge fund investors with big public-dollar signs in their eyes. The Harvard study, sponsored by Paul Grogan's Boston Foundation, acknowledges that it has a fatal methodological flaw, which "NatHawthorne" doesn't bother to include in his extensive quote. It is biased; it is propaganda, not science. Of course parents line up at the charter door; they are urban (read poor and/or black) people given public schooling that is inadequate to make up for their disadvantaged conditions, and misled to think charters will save them. They don't know that even if they make it through the lottery, they stand a small chance of getting their child all the way through. The charter boosters never publish the student ejection rates. No one should express an opinion on charters until they get the ejection figures. Student cherry-picking, rather than a longer school day or a non-union teacher or administrative "flexibility," is the secret to the charter "success" story. The enshrinement of test scores as the measurement of success makes this possible. Conveniently, it also narrows the skills necessary for good teaching, so that low-paid Teach for America and other transient temps can replace dedicated professionals as the test-prep conveyors (until on-line mass-classes take over altogether). That's why Menino can only accept charters part-way-- he wants the federal bucks, but he also knows that the secret charter formula can't work for him, because he has to take the charter rejects. Also conveniently, the test-score as the metric also assures that poor/black kids don't get an education that raises their expectations in life. Are the wealthy suburbs clamoring for charters? For dumbed-down test-prep factories staffed with temps, teaching no creative or critical thinking? No, this pedagogical experiment is reserved for "urban" children. And it is only a steppingstone to the real holy grail of "reform" -- vouchers and thus public funding for private (exclusive) and religious schools. Beware when "reformers" condemn public services as a "monopoly" -- the "free market" solution is their goal. And look how we'll that's been doing for most of us. Super well for some, but not so well for most. And that's no accident.
Nathawthorne has omitted these disclaimers in the Harvard-MIT study:
This report consists of two distinct research designs: an observational study and a lottery study.
Together they provide a comprehensive analysis of student achievement in Boston's public
schools, including Pilots and Charters. Each design is described in detail on page 8. This study is
limited by the constraints of our two research designs. The observational study includes all
schools but does not control for unobserved differences in background characteristics. The lottery
study controls for all differences in students’ background, including unobserved differences,
but does not include all schools.
A second caveat relates to the observed control variables used in our study. These include indicators
for participation in special education and limited English proficiency. These broad categories
may disguise large differences in student groups. Special education students range from those
needing intensive all day services to students needing a little extra time in a resource room.
English learners may know no English at all or have some proficiency. It is possible that Pilot and
Charter Schools serve different proportions of these subgroups. Unfortunately, our state data set
does not provide finely detailed breakdowns for these two variables in a manner consistent or
comprehensive enough to be useful for this study.
Finally, it also bears emphasizing that our study is not designed to uncover why or how Charter
Schools and Pilot Schools might change test scores. Rather we focus on the narrower though still
important question of whether different types of schools produce significant achievement gains.
For the moment, we cannot say which educational strategies or characteristics are most valuable
in each school setting, though that is a question we hope to address in future work. Thus, it’s
important to keep in mind the fact that there might be many reasons for a school’s success:
instructional focus, student/teacher ratios, staff qualifications or background, use of tutors,
and length of school day, to name a few.
This lottery-based approach is a very strong research design. When evaluating these results, however, it’s
important to keep in mind that our lottery study necessarily includes only schools and years for which the
applicant lotteries were both oversubscribed and carefully documented. If oversubscription and good record
keeping are signs of school quality, the results from our lottery study may be somewhat better than we should
expect from a broader sample of schools. In ongoing research, we are investigating this possibility by collecting additional data and looking at the determinants
of individual schools’ MCAS success.
@ NatHawthorne who is very active this morning:
1) Can we please find out what the attrition rates for Charters are? What might these be found? I need to see those before I evaluate charter performance.
2) How can we learn from Charters? They were marketed as great laboratories of innovation. But what mechanisms has been created in the past 20 years to share their great pedagogical break-throughs. From where I sit, they appear to be teaching to a test. Is that the best we can do for our kids? (So we redefine education as test prep and reduce measures of learning to a standardized test score and we evaluate the quality of education in light of that single data point? Please). This will never make urban kids competitive with those from the suburbs. How many reformers send their kids to charters? Not many I can assure you.
3) There is huge turnover in Charter school faculties. This is connected to #2 above. Also: the understanding that you can not raise a family on their pay package. Unionized teachers do better. The states with the highest test scores (for what those are worth) are states with unionized teachers. Finland has the most highly rated school system in the world. The teachers there are all unionized and highly respected. Check out the Finnish system. The kids receive a wonderful education, and it is all based on American (non-test oriented) reform ideas that are presently being totally ignored.
4) You feel charters work better and are that many are unwilling to "try something better." You feel frustrated by this. Question: what about the public schools that offer a much deeper education than charters? What do they do? Should we not be equally curious? Let's give all our kids the same quality of educations kids receive in Lexington, Concord, Sudbury, Weston, etc. What do those schools do? Why are we settling for two different planets with two standards of education?
5) The difference in scores. All because of the extra hour of school each day? I doubt it. But if that's so important, shouldn't there be a willingness to pay teachers to teach longer hours.
Thanks.
@LocalObservor, who is very observant this afternoon.
Question numbers and answers follow...
1) Perhaps we can find out, though I'm not sure where that data may be found. In the charter I am familiar with, attrition is quite low with the exception of those entering the 7th grade. Most middle school charter parents face a decision re when to return their kids to the traditional public school system (assuming there's no high school charter nearby; they are less common). Some prefer to do this at the jr. high level, others at high school. But back to you question, there is perhaps one fact from which we can draw an inference. Waiting lists for charters remain long. If there were large numbers of disgruntled parents pulling their kids from Charters I'm not sure there would be so many wanting to get in as one can only dupe the public for so long.
2) I've always found "testing to the test" a curious criticism and one generally offered by advocates for schools (or school systems) that don't fare well on those tests. The crushing irony here is that these same education systems have been issuing student performance ratings, in the form of grades, based on test scores since the 1800's. Of course, scores on standardizes tests don't mean everything, but they do mean something. When schools in the same town are randomly drawing from the same pool of students and one group consistently tests better then there is something at work worth understanding.
As for "creating a mechanism...to share their great pedagogical break-throughs," I really don't have the slightest idea what you mean here. Charter school methods and practices are no secret. Charters are subject to rigorous and regular state review, and all of their deliberations must adhere to the state's open meeting laws. There is nothing stopping the DoE or any local school department from studying charters and effecting similar changes in traditional public schools...nothing that is with the possible exception of the will to do it.
3) Unionized labor may do better in traditional public schools, but we have a growing body of evidence to suggest that the students they teach do not. It begs the question, what is the primary goal of the education system, education or suitably high comp packages for teachers? As for not being able to raise family on their pay package, that varies by school, but perhaps if we funded Charters on an equal footing with traditional public schools that might change.
4) "Question: what about the public schools that offer a much deeper education than charters?" What about them? Where they exist I suspect they're not losing many students to charters. But back at you, what about the parents whose kids attend schools that offer a much shallower education than charters, and for whom there is no local charter alternative due to the state's arbitrary limit on the number of charter schools?
Well, Nat Hawthorne. You are working over time.
1. You misunderstood my query. I was not talking about how many parents pulled how many kids out of charters. I want to know how many have flunked out or been counseled out. I want to know what percentage of an entering class graduates.
2. Well, fogive me if I am not crushed under the irony. I taught in a school system that did very well on standardized tests. But that is not what made the school a great one. Amazingly, before MCAS, when apparantly there was no accountability or standards, our graduates went on to very successful careers. They learned skilled and how to think critically. They looked back on their education with affection. I believe many came to love learning. They had teachers who had the automony to be creative. Let me turn what you said around. A standardized test score may be worth something, but it is not worth the huge value that is placed upon it today. Because it is data, it can be easily processed, but because of this very fact it has driven out other important valuers in education. It is like Greshams Law applied to learning. By thee away, the school which the Obama children attend does not believe in this overuse of test scores, whether in evaluating student or teacher performance. "When you insist on measuring all that you value, you end up valuing only what can be measured.
Let me explain what I mean. What Charters were created, public schools were told we were going to learn from these "laboratories." That was about it. No sharing since. No revelation. So what do you do? Why do you feel you are having the great success in this city that you claim? You would have thought a mechanism would have been put in place to disseminate the charter secret financed through public funds. From my perspective, it's too bad that no one had the good sense to check out how successful public schools were doing. But then again, it was necessary to make it appear "the public schools" were failing. Yes, you are public schools. You get public funds, but are you under the public's control? Not really.
3) Your response here is plain insulting. I was a union teacher. I had aspirations to send my two kids to college. That all right with you that I was paid decently? (My older son now in the private sector makes twice as much that his dad ever did). You claim union teachers are not as effective. You make a very broad generalization. You feel you can sunstantiate that with your "growing body of evidence? Why do you feel a charter teacher is/was better and more dedicated than I was? Ridiculous. You seem to lose quite a few teachers. You should try to attend to that. Oh, now you want us to fund you better? Stop making excuses.
4) What will happen if the charter cap is lifted. I make this prediction, and we are already going in this direction: a dual urban system will be created, with more and more special needs students (and those with severe needs) and English language learners placed (dumped?) in the traditional public schools--along with all expenses pertaining to their education. We will pass a tippling point and parents will flee the traditional public schools. That's what I think will will happen. Our public school system has served us well--"the cornerstone of our democracy." Corporate America is drooling over the education market. Hate all things public, but love those public finds. Medicare vouchers next?
I will add a criticism of the BTU leadership here. They didn't help things any when they opposed more pilot schools, which have an authentic claim to innovation. I volunteer in one now, and it is an absolutely wonderful school that actually has educational values that go beyond MCAS.
Ny the way NatHawthorne. Do you send your kid to a charter?Just curious. I ask because we have had a number of commissioners and school board heads of our public system who seemed to prefer non-test prep private schools for their very special kids.
Actually, I'm not working enough today; too much time on shoveling snow and on b.com ;-) I'll be working tomorrow.
1) Go it. Not sure where to find that; it would be an interesting piece of data, I agree. I'll poke around and see what I can find; please do the same.
2) We're quibbling about the degree to which standardized tests are valuable. We both think there is some value; we both agree they are not the only measure of performance. Exactly where do we disagree? As for the irony, we'll I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I'll try to keep your perspective in mind the next time I see a state funded university deny an applicant because his or her SAT scores are too low.
Lastly on this point, look at it this way, beyond the anecdotal, what evidence do you have that traditional public schools do as good job or better than charters?
3) "You claim union teachers are not as effective." That is simply not what I said. I have close family members who are union teachers and I know that is not the case. I did say (and do say) that there is a growing body of evidence to support the assertion that in the aggregate, non-union schools do a better job teaching children than do union shops. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. Your issue is with the data, not with me.
With regard to Medicare vouchers, we can only hope they're next as they'd be a darned sight more effective than the changes we're about to implement. But that's a different debate for another thread.
4) Your prediction has come true. Those with means have fled many (mostly urban) school systems and a mess has been left in its wake. Here's another irony for you: school choice stands the best chance of working where it's needed the most: large urban areas with low cost mass transit systems and amble commercial real estate.
Finally, what would convince you that charters (and choice) offer a better way? Performance on standardized tests has not. The Harvard-MIT study cited in this column has not. The collective wisdom of 10,000's of MA parents on charter waiting lists has not. So what would?
p.s. And yes, I'm a charter school parent, three times over.
Actually, I'm not working enough today; too much time on shoveling snow and on b.com ;-) I'll be working tomorrow.
1) Go it. Not sure where to find that; it would be an interesting piece of data, I agree. I'll poke around and see what I can find; please do the same.
2) We're quibbling about the degree to which standardized tests are valuable. We both think there is some value; we both agree they are not the only measure of performance. Exactly where do we disagree? As for the irony, we'll I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. I'll try to keep your perspective in mind the next time I see a state funded university deny an applicant because his or her SAT scores are too low.
Lastly on this point, look at it this way, beyond the anecdotal, what evidence do you have that traditional public schools do as good job or better than charters?
3) "You claim union teachers are not as effective." That is simply not what I said. I have close family members who are union teachers and I know that is not the case. I did say (and do say) that there is a growing body of evidence to support the assertion that in the aggregate, non-union schools do a better job teaching children than do union shops. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. Your issue is with the data, not with me.
With regard to Medicare vouchers, we can only hope they're next as they'd be a darned sight more effective than the changes we're about to implement. But that's a different debate for another thread.
4) Your prediction has come true. Those with means have fled many (mostly urban) school systems and a mess has been left in its wake. Here's another irony for you: school choice stands the best chance of working where it's needed the most: large urban areas with low cost mass transit systems and amble commercial real estate.
Finally, what would convince you that charters (and choice) offer a better way? Performance on standardized tests has not. The Harvard-MIT study cited in this column has not. The collective wisdom of 10,000's of MA parents on charter waiting lists has not. So what would?
p.s. And yes, I'm a charter school parent, three times over.
Fairly good Scotless discussion today. Not sure we solved anything but we talk more than the Washington babies - cheers to all!
Actually, I think "NatHawthorne" is Scot Lehigh! They share a similar writing style. Of course it could be just a problem with the interface, but has anyone noticed that the DISLIKE button is not working for NatHawthorne?
@jshore,
No, I'm not Scot, but thank you for the thinking I might be. My public school senior year English teacher (and union member) would be pleased.
BTW, need to check my facts on charter school funding and will get back to your posts within the next couple of days.
regards.
1) OK, I'll wait.
2) You say we are quibbling about the weight that should be given to standardized tests. But it's not like you are saying 52% and I am saying 48%. This little data point has come to define what it means to be well-educated. Period. Against it, teachers are to be evaluated...and to an ever increasing extent. Based upon it, schools are opened or closed, students graduate or don't. This one piece of data--this fragment, this exact number invested with the aura of scientific certitide --has a power that not even the industry--and I mean industry!--that manufacture these exams claim for it. I am not quibbling when I say it has driven out most of the other criteria that define a good education. I am not quibbling when I say: IT'S USE (MISUSE) IS WAY, WAY OVER THE TOP!
By the way, speaking as someone who had mediocre SAT scores that (supposedly) conclusively demonstrated I could not possibly make it through the nation's most distinguished universities, I actually did make it through those very universities with distinction, and here I am having a discussion with you Mr NatHawthone and hopefully holding my own. I guess this only proves what the College Board/SAT was later forced to acknowledge about its assessment product: it was not an aptitude test. That's why the "A" no longer stands for anything. It was a test that you could be prepped for, and there are big bucks being spent to do just that in the suburbs, Mr. NH.
Here is how you evaluate a school. (I now visit many of them as part of my post-retirement responsibilities). You go there and spend time there. A school is a living thing. It has culture. It has a curriculum. The teachers do or don't practice certain pedagogies. Want to evaluate a teacher? Invest the time to sit in on their classes. And not just one. I don't call that anecdotal. The only think that satisfies you is a data point. That what makes something not anecdotal I guess. One data point. Instant evaluation. Objective! Scientific! Really? Is it merely anecdotal that, say, Harvard, is a fine university? Don't we need standardized testing there to really know? But we had standardized tests there, would education at Harvard be improved? Or would the way we measure change what we are measuring?
3) I see, you didn't say union teachers aren't as effective, what you said is "there is a growing body of evidence to support the assertion that in the aggregate, non-union schools do a better job teaching children than do union shops." Sorry, I don't quite get the difference. Non-union schools do a better job...where? Mississippi? Alabama? Which of the non-unionized teacher states? "Growing body of evidence" sounds very impressive. Very scientific. Lay it all out. My issue is not with data per se. It may be with the particular data you seem to worship But lay it out there and let's take a look see.
Thank you for your views about medicare and health care. I prefer the system that gave my hardworking father dignity up to the day of his death.
4) Well, some have fled, some have been induced, some been thrown back. It would greatly help if we had leaders of our public system who were visionaries rather than functionaries. That goes for the BTU. (They created a great pilot school, but want to stop the creation of others. Why?) The participation of everyone made social security and medicare possible. So too, we could have great public schools with adequate funding, if we are all in. We already have many great ones. We have the model. You want choice? You want an alternative? Then pay for your private school. Don't drain funds from the public system. That's of course what insurance companies want to do with medicare, en route to killing it.
So you sent three kids to charters. At least you are not recommending for others what you didn't give to your own children. You are principled, I grant you that. I don not think most "reformers" made the choice you did.
I grew up in the Bronx, and I am not talking Riverdale. My uncle, my father, my brother and I all went to the same working class high school. From it emerged many great Americans (List available on request). I became a teacher because of the selfless dedication and skill of my union teachers. In my own life, I have experienced the greatness of a public school education. I got something more than a data point to lean on and lead me through life.
Massachusetts public schools are, far-and-away, the best in the US as measured by the nationwide NAEP exam "the nations report card". No other state comes close to our performance:
http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2011/11111-naeps-results-released.html
Internationally, as measured by the TIMMS test, if Massachusetts is broken out from the rest of the US it is one of the few best educational systems in the world:
http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2012/12/massachusetts_aces_internation.html
We're number one in the country, and one of the few best in the world. This is a tremendous credit to the fantastic work that our (yes, unionized!) teachers do every day in our plain old public schools. (Now *that* would make for a great column, don't you think?)
Would it be better for our schools to outclass those in the rest of the country by even more? Sure! Might charter schools be even better? Perhaps! But there are a lot of things that we don't know about charter schools. What happens when they get populations of students that are *truly* matched to their cohorts in regular schools, rather than just being compared via mathematical models? What happens when charters can't "counsel out" students who are struggling, and have to accomodate children with special educational needs? Are charters running an unsustainable business model that has landmines waiting down the road? And so forth.
If our students were struggling, it might be reasonable to go big on charters in the hope that it could help. But given that Massachusetts schools are already fantastic and well-proven, I'm not sure why on Earth we'd want to take that risk until charters have been properly tested. Instead of the unproven experiment of Race to the Top, America ought to be studying the well-proven Massachusetts educational system.
"HarryPitts"
Had to head for the golf course earlier but wanted to respond. If you're out there. "Attaturk" is a double play both ethnic and funning around. It actually does come from something I saw long ago in an old "beat" poem that went atta boy atta turk. Can't even remember now but it always stuck in my mind, the tempo of it.
As to our little conversation there. I wasn't offended even though someone thought I might be. It takes a lot more than that to offend a 65 year old man. However, I wasn't pointing out the Masters as a one up, in fact on re-read I'm not even sure what I was thinking when I stuck that in there. I'm quite sure there must have been a point.
As to the typo issue. I stand by the position that the misuse of "their" and "they're" in rapid typing is still classified as a typo in this particular environment. The brain resonates the word "they're" but the auto-reflex of typing takes the shortes measure to the word which leads to "their". It is a very common typo "bear" - "bare" , "are" - "our" there are a bunch of them.
Anyhow the conversation was fun. Will do it again sometime.
By the way regardless of what Gates might think. American's in general don't think highly of intellectuals.
Thank you. I enjoyed our exchange and I came away from our discussion agreeing with a lot of what you said although there are some points on which we must agree to disagree. There was nothing in your removed comment that was offensive or which violated the Globe's policy so I don't know why you got nuked or who flagged your comment. It wasn't me.
I liked your screen name and I thought it was a clever play on words. My screen name used to be HarryPitts (hairy pits) but at some point I offended the exalted grand poohbahs who police the comments and Harry got sent to Siberia, so I had to go through the trouble of creating a new screen name (hairier pits). OK, it's second grade humor I admit.
Were charters public schools they'd be labeled 'dropout factories.' See http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/03/charter-school-attrition/
And yet the waiting lists for charters remain. Why are so many parents willing to send their kids to these "dropout factories?"
@localoberver
1) Why are you waiting? Am I your only source of information?
2) As a public school teacher, I feel safe in saying you you've been part of a system that has been using tests (both standardized and not) to evaluate students in this country for over a century. The idea that somehow it's inappropriate to use those test results as a material factor in the evaluation of teachers and school performance is, frankly, absurd. Absent such tests, what are we left with, teachers and schools evaluating themselves? Do you not see the inherent conflict of interest there? You say you believe standardized tests should count for something, but quite honestly the impression your posts leave is that they are meaningless. Sorry, but we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point.
3) I never said SATs or the like are aptitude tests. They are measures of what has been learned. Their value, IMO, is as a comparative aid; the scores alone mean far less to me. But on this subject, while working in the profession, did you test your students and issue grades? Did those grades matter? If wo, why?
4) "Non-union schools do a better job...where? Mississippi?" I'm not sure. But what I do know that as measured by the MCAS results and a Harvard-MIT study of those results, non-union charters are doing better than either unionized public schools and unionized pilot schools. (BTW, why the gratuitous dig at Mississippi?)
5) "You want choice? You want an alternative? Then pay for your private school. Don't drain funds from the public system. That's of course what insurance companies want to do with medicare, en route to killing it." I find it hard to believe that you were both a public school teacher and could be this misinformed about charters. Charters are public schools. They have just as much right to public funding as traditional public schools (even though they in fact receive much less). As for private schools being a viable "choice," I'm sorry, that is ridiculous and you must see that. Those schools cost nearly as much as colleges. Most us cannot afford to pay for education twice - once with our taxes and yet again by forking over 10,000's of dollars per year, per student on a private education. Choice only for the "1%" is no choice at all.
I appreciate your comments about me being principled, but I am not advocating that anyone send their kids to a charter. I'm asking that they be given a choice to send their kids to any public school that will take them whether that be a charter, a pilot or a traditional public school. I also believe that teachers unions should not be given a monopoly over the public school teaching profession. Cities and towns should have the choice to hire either union or non-unionized labor as they see fit. I believe these changes will create better schools, better teachers, and better students; and the objective measures at our disposal (and many subjective ones if you infer anything from the popularity of charters) tell me that I am right in this.
Lastly, I'll say what to you what I say to another teacher I exchanged messages with on this board, thank you for your service. You had a harder (and more important) job than most.
@localobserver, again.
It occurs to me that I've not asked you a very basic question, what is your position on the future of chater schools in MA? Do you think the cap should be lifted? Do you think they should all be closed down?
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/09/philly-coming-grips-with-mass-school-closings/jKSNTdSPiFcsm6Ekm9eV0L/story.html
Not sure if you are still plugged into this, NatHawthorne. But some points. (Unfortunately, we are missing each other on some...but to be expected in this medium)
-Candidly, to me you are just anti-union--as an ideological preference. What might be your explanation for why non-union teachers are better (that is, by virtue of not being in a union) than union teachers. Spell that out please. Well at any rate, you are entitled to your ideological preferences. If my garment worker parents and grandparents hadn't had unions, I wouldn't have been able to accomplish what I did in my life. Believe me, it's OK for workers to earn a decent living. Don't let it ruin your sleep.
- I am against lifting the charter cap. The fact is pilots can do everything charters can. We have to work together to improve the public schools, not close them down. If many can excel, all can and must excel. They are our common legacy. You always have the choice to opt out of the public system. Yes, funding charters hurts the public schools. I agree that all kinds of schools have a right to exist, whether they have a right to public funding is another matter. Perhaps you are not aware there is an effort in certain quarters to destroy all things "public." If you wanted "choice" and preferred to opt for a medicare voucher option, would that imperil the medicare system as we know it. Of course it would. Because we are no longer "all in."
- OK, worry not. I didn't depend on you for the stats about attrition. But here they are from another source. They help put into perspective the meaning of isolated data points, whether talking about MCAS scores or college attendance:
"Well, with Scot Lehigh once again burnishing the charter school myth in today’s Globe, it’s time once again to go to the numbers.
Charter schools like to tout their test scores and long waiting lists, especially when advocating for more charter schools. But neither they nor their handmaidens in the local media ever talk about their attrition.
Using data from the Mass DOE’s website, let’s look at the attrition from several Boston charter schools, shall we?
Academy of the Pacific Rim had 81 5th graders in the 2005-2006 school year. Only 26 of those students remain as 12th graders this year.
Boston Collegiate Charter School had 88 6th graders in the 2006-2007 school year. Only 35 of those students remain as 12th graders this year.
Boston Preparatory Charter School had 102 6th graders in the 2006-2007 school year. Only 39 remain as 12th graders this year.
City on a Hill Charter School had 130 9th graders in the 2009-2010 school year. Only 47 remain this year as 12th graders.
Codman Academy Charter School had 53 9th graders in the 2009-2010 school year. Only 24 remain this year as 12th graders.
MATCH Charter high school had 72 9th graders in the 2009-2010 school year. Only 45 remain this year.
Judging by these numbers, MATCH is by far the most effective charter high school in Boston, retaining 62.5% of its students until 12th grade.
Academy of the Pacific Rim appears to be the least effective with a 32% retention rate.
As a point of comparison, Boston Public Schools enrolled 4,862 9th graders in 2009-2010 and has 3,869 12th graders this year. This is 79% retention.
I would like it if Scot Lehigh or any charter school advocate or operator could explain to me how these numbers reflect success."
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: my two kids went to public school too. They are doing very well. I want to publicly thank all their union teachers who did a superb job, and provided whatever special help they needed.
Thank you for this information, which is the most important point in the charter discussion, and always glossed over by charter proponents. One addition -- a Globe piece touting MATCH revealed even higher attrition rates. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/13/charter_school_makes_grade/?page=full).
In comparing retention rates with BPS, we should remember that BPS loses many students to departing families and voluntary drop-outs due to economic problems (kids that need to earn money for their families) as well as to drop-outs due to student fear of MCAS failure. The charters (and pilots) decide whom they keep, cream-skimming the students who will produce the best "performance" statistices. They screen the lottery "winners" by requiring parental commitments of parent-teacher meetings, school volunteer time and money donations, student essays, transcripts, teacher recommendations, etc. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/08/pilot_schools_setting_more_hurdles/?page=full) Education Commissioner David P. Driscoll said: "We've never claimed that the students who attend charter schools would be similar to a random sample of all kids. That's not the case," he said.
The problem in public school education is student poverty. But in charters, conservatives find all the solutions they like better than alleviating poverty: blaming the poor for their situation, busting the unions to eliminate economic security among working people, depriving the poor of an education that would equip them to compete with the higher classes, privatizing public services and turning them into a river of profits for corporations http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/hedge-funds-scholarly-investments/) (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/15/1187346/-So-why-do-hedge-funds-so-favor-charter-schools) (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/albany-charter-cash-big-banks-making-bundle-new-construction-schools-bear-cost-article-1.448008), etc.
@localobserver
I'm still plugged in here. And it's ok if we keep "missing" each other. As you imply, that's the charm of this medium; we post when we can and it really doesn't matter the conversation stretches out across several days.
- I understand that you think I'm anti-union. All I can tell you is that I am not. Unions are an integral part of our labor force, and even though I do not belong to a union I fully realize the benefits I enjoy from my employer are in no small way the result of the unionized labor movement over the last 150 years.
What I am against is monopolies. Hopefully you'll agree that corporations/businesses are not, per se, bad things. But when they control an entire market, they typically do great harm. The same holds for unions. When they are the only game in town (literally) for professional education labor, I think it creates problems. Believing that does not make me "anti-union," except perhaps to those that are dogmatically pro-union. What I seek are balance and choices. That often strikes fear the hearts of those who have to this point maintined a near complete control on public education, and that should be no surprise to anyone.
- " The fact is pilots can do everything charters can." You're certainly entitled to you own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts. What "fact" tells you that pilots perform as well as charters? We have the Harvard-MIT study that says they do not.
- "Yes, funding charters hurts the public schools " This statement is simply wrong. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Traditional public schools benefit financially for three years **after** they lose a student to a charter school. Since you were in the profession you know how local schools are funded. There's the revenue from local property taxes and also per-student funding from the state. If, for example, a student moves from Marshfield to Weymouth, Marshfield loses the state funding for that student and Weymouth gains it. Most would find this fair, as do I. Charter schools exist only on this per student funding from the state (plus their own fundraising efforts). Here's the kicker, if in my example above, were the Marshfield student to leave the Marshfield public school system for a charter anywhere else in the state, Marshfield would still receive the per student funding, in full, for the following year. They would then receive a reduced payment from the state over the next two years; i.e. a tradition public school continues to receive per student funding from the state for charter students they no longer teach. The same does not apply in reverse. This is why your assertion that "charters hurt public schools" is completely wrong. Our state and local school funding policies are heavily biased in favor of traditional public schools.
- Re the attrition rates, the data you cite proves that one can cherry-pick attrition rates from some charters, and while those rates do seem quite high, the article is far from a proper analysis on the subject. There's no attempt to categorize the reasons for those high rates. There's no comparative study on the attrition rates of traditional public schools in those areas. There's no effort made to assess the attrition rates of MA charters in the aggregate. What that article does is no different than were I to hold up a report on the worst performing schools districts in the state and say "see, this is what traditional public education in Massachusetts has become!"
Lastly, you continue to describe charter schools as something other than public schools. Why is that?
NatHawthorn said, “Charter schools exist only on this per student funding from the state (plus their own fundraising efforts).”
NatHawthorn must have missed my previous replies to his statement. He is misinformed. Charters are not level funded by the students they serve, but by the “average” the sending district spends on ALL its students.
Let me give you an example of what happens in Boston Public Schools (BPS). To educate a Regular Ed student in BPS cost $11,558. However, when you add the cost of all the BPS Special Ed & ELL/LEP students, the cost averages out to $14,704! Charters are paid the average $14,704. even though their population of students is mostly Regular Ed, and in no way reflects the demographic of the Boston Public Schools! Not only do charters not service our SPED or ELL/LEP students, they legally swindle BPS children out of $3,146+ non-tuition revenue per student!
After 12 years a regular ed student attending a Boston charter school receives $37,752.+ more in tuition! This figure does not include the 5% yearly increases anticipated, and budgeted, for charter schools, and does not include the non-tuition revenue! The “non-tuition revenue” received by charter schools includes the state and federal nutrition funding, transportation reimbursements, a state grant related to Academic Support Services, a direct per pupil facilities grant, and federal entitlement grants including Title I funding directed to the school’s tutorial programs, IDEA funding directed at the school’s Special Education program, and Title IIA Improving Educator Quality.
Boston charter schools saturate the East Zone, and their recruitment efforts targets the Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester neighborhoods. Initially, you might think this is a good thing, until you understand that the non-tuition revenue is calculated based on students at the school! The higher the student poverty rate, the higher the non-tuition revenue! It is really quite ugly when you realize the big picture. Families of students in Boston’s traditional schools should file a suit against the city! After 12 years a Boston charter school student is getting $37,752+ more than a traditional Boston public school student! That $37,752.+ tuition (which does not include non-tuition revenue), comes out of the budgets of traditional BPS schools that are servicing Boston’s neediest children!
Reply button seems busted. So I will just post anew, NatH.
1) Your response about unions was very weak and non reponsive. First off, what's your beef with the MTA, since all the locals do their own negotiating? Would you prefer a right to work state so those wicked monopolies can be busted up--all in the name of chocie of course. No more unions or social security or medicare. Charters want a non-unionized staff for a reason. Like to guess what that is? Anyway still waiting for you to explain to me why non-union teachers would be better and more effective. Smarter? More dedicated? What is God's name did my union have to do with my performance in the classroom? Please come up with some hypothesis.
2) Hopefully JShore's reply helping you abu the funding issue. By the way, when kids disapppear from public schools, do the fixed costs of those public schools decline, even after 3 years? If three kids go to charter, can you layoff a teacher or reduce heating costs?
3) I asked you about attrition rates. You came up with nothing and asked me to go find them. I came up with some and now you say, "Hey those are just some." OK, you do some digging now. It is kind of an important point. "There's no attempt to analyze the reasons for this." Oh, there has been analysis. You just don't accept them. Fine, come up with an alternative explanation.
4) My old-fashioned idea of public schools: those that allow all in and have a representative sample of students from that area. And no "counseling" of students out either. Also how about this: they are owned by the public. Also how about elected school boards--"the public"-- in charge of all of them, including those outside the city.
5) You evaluate school according one one metric. You think highest MCAS score=best school. I don't. Pilots do quite well. Go sit in on one. Spend some time. The Globe will soon be receiving a letter critiquing the finding in the study Lehigh cites. The comparisons even on the simplistic data point you revere are not as clear as you think. I would put the analysis here, but better that the letter gets published.
Still waiting for explanation of the magic of charters and non-union teachers. Is it just that they are small schools? Just that the dead hand of BPS bureaucracy doesn't weigh as heavily on them? Just that they focus relentlessly on test prep? Just smarter people crackling with innovation? Not as many special needs students or English language learners? Would love to go through these with you. Searching, searching.
Such wonderful schools. Just makes me wonder why the attrition rates and why the high teacher turnover.
@localobserver, I'm pressed for time this morning so I will only speak to your continued mischaracterization of my position on teachers who are members of unions. I'll get to the other points in the coming days. FIrst of all, please drop the "no more ... social security or medicare" accusations. You don't know my positoin on those issuses nor do they bear any relevance to this discussion. Your repeated reference to them appears to be a clumsy attempt to characterize me as some sort of anti-government extremist and thus a thinly failed ad hominem attack. You ought to know this line of reasonging wouldn't past muster in a sophomore debating club. Please try to limit you comments to what I've said, not what you think I might say based on any preconseived notions about me. Back to the point: I repeat, I have never said "non union teachers are better." That is your characterisation of what I said, and it's simply wrong; reptition on your part will not make me say it nor make me agree to it. I have said that the objective data at our disposal indicates non-unions charters are performing better than union trad or pilot schools. This isn't just my opinion; the researches at Harvard and MIT who conducted that study agree with me. There may be many reasons for this, but the data does not prove non-union teachers are better. Were I to use a football analogy, I would say that although the Patriots lost two games to the Baltimore Ravens last year it doesn't mean that Flacco is better than Tom Brady or that Harbaugh is a better coach than Bill Belichick. The victories do mean that right now the Ravens have a better team, a better organization than the New England Patriots do. You're simply taking my interpretation of the data too personally, and you shouldn't. You also need to open your mind to the possiblity that charters may be doing something right, and not see any support for them as a threat to you or your profession. Regarding a hypothesis on charters are performing better, I think the most likely reason is because they have to or they don't survive. What parent is gonig to **choose** to send their kids to a mediocre charter? Let's contrast than to a region where there is no school choice. If performance of the local school dips (and all organizations go through their ups and downs), what's the consequence? Are the students going not going to return in the fall? Are the tax dollars going away? Can concerned parents quickly sell there home and move elsehwere? They answers are no, no, and for the most part no. I have been in the working world for over thirty years. In that time I have worked for small organizations and large. I have managed groups of five and five hundrend. I have worked in a government and private sector jobs. My expeirences convince me that people and organizations who exist in competative environments outperform those in a non-competitive environment. It's the reason market economies invariably outperform centrally planned economimes. In short, my conern with unionized schools in MA is that for most them there are no real consequences for average or even sub-par performance. Many fail to improve because there's little reason to do so.
Oh, stop hiding behind "Harvard-MIT"! That's not research. It's propaganda.
Competition is good for profits. Creation and trade of some things -- products, commodities, physical tangible comparable things -- are best regulated by open markets (of which we have, actually, few if any). Education is not one of them.
@skressel
So those bastions of conservative policy, Harvard and MIT, are up to their old tricks, eh?
Ah, ya.
Scot nails it!!!!!!!!!!
Bush Kept Us Safe. Scot nails it.
'Nuf said.
@jshore (with a cc to localobserver),
I've had a chance to do some more reading on charter school funding, and you're correct, I was misinformed. The summary I posted on how charters are funded was incorrect, and as best I can tell your description of how charter state funding is calculated is correct; thanks for setting me straight.
In your posts you've also made the claim that this formula results in charters getting more funding than traditional public schools because the cost of special ed students is included in the calculations and traditional public schools have a much higher percentage of SPED students. This argument only holds water only if there is a large enough gap in the % of SPED students between the two types of schools. The reading I've done thus far tells me that that difference is not as great as you imply and does not result in the funding disparity you claim.
Here's a link to a 2010 study done at Ball State. It attempts to assess whether a charter school funding gap recorded in an earlier 2002 study still exists; data from many states went into the study, including from Massachusetts.
http://cms.bsu.edu/-/media/WWW/DepartmentalContent/Teachers/PDFs/charterschfunding051710.pdf
The study found that per student spending in MA is 19% higher for traditional school students than for charters ($15.9k vs $12.8k). The study then goes on to address the SPED issue you raised with this finding "Evidence also suggests that differences in the number of students with disabilities enrolled in district and charter schools cannot explain the funding disparity between them...an SRI International report using FY 1999-2000 data and a University of Maryland report using FY 2004-05 data – estimate that district schools serve a special education population that is two to three percentage points larger than in charter schools." There are limits here. The study acknowledges there is no national database that allows for state-by-state comparison by school types. The SPED enrollment difference in MA may be higher or lower than two or three percentage points.
So to me it looks like the data still supports my assertion that charters receive less funding than to traditional public schools; let me know what you think.
p.s. Sorry for the density of the earlier post; not sure what happened to all the "return" keys; it had paragraphs when I clicked "post."