Charter opponents have no more legs to stand on
By Jim StergiosNovember 7th, 2009
So the unions and superintendents tried the argument that charters do not serve as many disadvantaged students. We dismantled that argument. While charters don’t serve as many special needs kids and English Language learners, both categories designated by adults, they serve many more minority and poor students.
So, then the Mass Teachers Association cries out about high attrition in a handful of high-powered charter schools in Boston. But they forget that choice schools are about parents making choices. And, oops, they forget that in fact there is more attrition in the Boston Public Schools. And, uh, ooh, ah, they forget that in the charters they are pointing fingers at there is only a dropout rate of 10 percent, which is less than the state average, while in the BPS schools the dropout rate is more like 35 percent.
And now, with the release ofour newest white paper, Follow the Money: Charter School and District Funding in Massachusetts, we find out their other tried-and-true hue-and-cry, that charter schools spend more and drain resources from districts, is also without merit.
Key facts from the report:
* In FY2008, charter schools spent an average of $10,628 per student, $9,277 after subtracting facilities expenses. By contrast, the school districts charter students came from spent a weighted average of $13,530 per student—$4,253 more per student than charters.
* The $27.7 million – or about $1,800 per pupil – that charter schools received in federal, state, and private grants during FY2008 was slightly less than the average district.
* According to state data, Boston spent approximately $17,150 per student, while the city’s charters spent $12,700 per student, roughly $4,400 less than the Boston Public Schools.
As the author, Salem State Professor Ken Ardon notes, “The state gives districts three years to address the loss of funds, beginning with full reimbursement during the first year and ramping down to 40 percent of per-pupil cost by the third.”
So, let’s get this straight. Charter schools have consistently outperformed their district counterparts on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests. Some urban charters even outperform affluent suburban districts. They serve lots of disadvantaged students, they have lower dropout rates, and they are cost-effective.
When will the education establishment act like educated people and face the facts?
Entry Filed under: News
12 Comments Add your own
1. Eduardo del Solar | November 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Hi Jim,
As you probably know the teaching force in our state, certainly in Boston, is one of the highest educated teaching forces in our country. That is why many of us question the facts or premises on the Pioneer Institute reports. Personally I love the infomercials or reports you pioneers put out. They are so simple and clear. Unfortunately, “just because you repeat something a thousand times does not make it true”, if I may quote you, an educated group will need much more than repetition.
I am sorry to hear you did not like the attrition rates among charter schools here in Boston. After all, who would want to send their kids to a drop out factory based on the metric used by Secretary Duncan? Would you?
In my case when my three kids were of age to enter middle schools we explored the Renaissance Charter School, located in downtown Boston. Unfortunately we found out the teacher turnover was extremely high. Add to that the fact they had very few veteran teachers to provide direction to young staff. That raised a huge flag for us. After all, stability is an essential classroom ingredient for kids this age.
Have you pioneers done any studies on teacher or student attrition rates among charters vs. regular’s schools? If you have, please keep me informed. I always love to read your position papers on school issues.
Regards
Eduardo del Solar
2. Jim Stergios | November 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Debate the data, Eduardo. On the data, you are wrong, and that is where the debate should start and end.
Give me your response on the data about dropouts, and don’t conflate mobility (attrition) with dropouts. Frankly, it is plain dishonest.
On Renaissance, we have supported corrective action there, and we have also supported the closure of charters that have not worked well. We are on the record about that.
And we have supported the closures, even when the kids would have had to be moved back into district schools that perform at a lower level. That is a tough call, but intellectually honest.
But again you are nitpicking about inputs. I am more interested in results for kids, however schools get there. if Renaissance did not do it for you, try many of the other fantastic charters out there.
But, oh, maybe you will have to be on the waiting lists with 8,000 other parents in Boston. I knew I would, and that is why I moved to Brookline where my kids attend district schools. I know that many other parents in Boston don’t have those same financial resources to move with their feet, and that makes me understandably dissatisfied with the BPS system.
Tell me, Ed, why can’t we shut down and hold accountable district schools in the same way we do charters? And would you support that?
3. mischievous_blogger | November 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Ed,
Interesting, as a Boston public school teacher of 25yrs, you would look into a charter.
http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/blog/news/charter-opponents-have-no-more-legs-to-stand-on/comment-page-1/#comment-3559
What a privilege.
-Rebecca
4. SaltyDog | November 18th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Re: “So the unions and superintendents tried the argument that charters do not serve as many disadvantaged students. We dismantled that argument. While charters don’t serve as many special needs kids and English Language learners… they serve many more minority and poor students.”
Are you serious? Charters serve more minority and poor students (more than the state average) because charter schools are disproportionately sited in communities that are poor and minority. Thus, it is Boston–not Brockton or Hamilton-Wenham-that has the charter schools. The argument about charters “creaming” is about what happens inside districts, not between districts. If you want to seriously engage in this argument, start with the real issue: creaming within districts.
Meanwhile, you’ve only “dismantled” a straw man.
5. Jim Stergios | November 19th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Hi Salty: Thanks for your comment. For Boston, the percentage of African-Americans in charters compared to district schools is 68 to 51% in high school (HS), 70 to 47% in middle school (MS), and 75 to 44% in elementary school (ES). The percentages for Hispanic students run in favor of the district schools, but overall A-A and H percentages run in favor of charters (82 v. 86 in HS, 88 v. 84 in MS, and 89 v. 75 in ES).
On low-income in Boston, you are right. Free-lunch percentages (a proxy for poverty rates) for charters run from the mid-60s to mid-70s, while district schools in the 80s.
6. SaltyDog | November 27th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Regarding the relative role of traditional and charter schools in educating special needs children, here’s the data for 2008-09. They make it clear that charters substantially leave these kids to traditional schools.
The evidence that you site in another post compares apples to pineapples by comparing charters in specific districts to the entire state. You’ve got to compare look at how charters work in particular communities to see how the demographics of that community get filtered when kids are selected for charters vs traditional schools in the community.
In Boston, the filtering is clear enough. Traditional schools carry a larger share of special needs kids in EVERY special needs category: First language not English, Limited English Proficiency, Low income, and SPED. In the case of LEP, charters take on virtually none of the challenge, leaving it entirely to traditional districts: 18.9% of traditional school enrollees are LEP vs. a mere 1.7% in charters.
(Minorities–African Americans and Hispanic–in Boston are slightly less represented in traditional schools than in charters–the representation is 76.0% vs 84.5% of enrollees in traditional vs charters respectively.)
Across the state, the real dynamics of charter creaming is in evidence when you look at charter enrollees compared to the local district (or in the case of Devens, the district providing traditional school services) from which the charter draws its students. Here minority representation is almost exactly the same, as you’d expect–49.8% in traditional schools, 49.2% in charters.
But these local comparison data show that the charter schools take on a mere fraction of special needs kids from their community. Thus, traditional vs charter comparison yields these numbers: First language not English, 32.8 vs 16.0; LEP, 14.5 vs 4.0; Low income, 59.5 vs 45.8; SPED, 19.7 vs 11.9.
The innovation of charters is essentially the idea of keeping out the most challenging students. They appear to do that very well indeed, even if not by design. This enables them to start with higher performing students.
A note to the Boston Foundation study: the creaming done by charters suggests why kids who are denied a charter seat by a charter lottery might then perform worse (than a comparison group in the charter classes) when they return to the traditional classroom–these classrooms are coping with the challenges of special needs children, an obligation that the chater classrooms have substantially managed to avoid.
Meanwhile, charters are nationally underperforming matched traditional schools (cf. the CREDO study from Stanford). Possibly charters in the rest of the country are not so effective at filtering out difficult students as we are in Massachusetts charters? I don’t know.
These data point to a horrible irony in the Patrick/Reville school reform program, which is supposed to be about closing the achievement gap. The effective method of addressing the gap is to provide special funding and “innovation” to the students in local districts who need it least.
In any case, if your thesis is that there is no differing special needs burden on charters and traditional schools in Massachusetts, you’d want to seriously revise that idea in light of the data. The fundamental fact of charters in Massachusetts is that they operate to shun challenging students.
7. Jim Stergios | December 1st, 2009 at 1:54 am
Salty: Your comment can be summed up as positing that low-income, minority students do better in charter schools because there are fewer ELL and SPED students in charters than in district schools. But if you compare low-income, minority students in charters and district schools, you know as well as I do that an apples to apples analysis (keep your pineapples to yourself, man) shows that the L-I minorities do better in charters. So, besides pointing out once again that there are more SPED and ELL students in districts, which I noted in my post, what’s your point?
Charters shun challenging students? Dream on. If that were so there would be much higher achievement in district schools for L-I minorities, and charter waiting lists and METCO waiting lists would not be what they are.
8. Eduardo del Solar | December 17th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Ed,
Interesting, as a Boston public school teacher of 25yrs, you would look into a charter.
What a privilege.
No Rebecca, it is not a privilege. It is a right. I have lived in Boston since the 70’s. All three of my kids attended BPS school and have graduated. That is not a privilege because my property tax pays for it.
The Renaissance Charter School got an incredible amount of money from Weld to start the school. Unfortunately, the teaching staff was too transient and they lacked diversity of experienced teachers. Too many inexperienced teachers and no support from experienced teacher made it a real bad choice.
9. Eduardo del Solar | December 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Debate the data, Eduardo.
Well Jim, looks like saltydog has cleaned your plate with the data, so there is no reason to go over it again.
Tell me, Ed, why can’t we shut down and hold accountable district schools in the same way we do charters?
Good question as all Charter schools in Boston are doing poorly and not one has been closed here in Boston. The only Charter I know has been closed is the one using extreme innovative practices during MCAS testing. That one was closed by the state as they claim the school was cheating.
And would you support that?
I know that in Boston every single school that is underperforming exists inside what is called zones of poverty. All 14 schools Dr. Johnson selected as underperforming reside in areas of extreme poverty. Should they be closed? If we shut down those schools should we bus these kids to Brookline, Weston or Wellesley? All those liberals will be up in arms. I do not see that happening. The legacy of segregation is too strong so I believe these schools will remain segregated. There, of course, will be a lot of talk about educational reform as a cover up for segregation.
10. SaltyDog | December 18th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
RE: “Charters shun challenging students? Dream on. If that were so there would be much higher achievement in district schools for L-I minorities, and charter waiting lists and METCO waiting lists would not be what they are.”
Well, the data say it all–yes, charters fail to enroll challenging students–including low income– at the rate of traditional schools. Pretty clear, no ambiguity–see my post above.
Apparently, charter proponents simply cannot/will not admit the import of this observation. It is bizarre to see the workings of what I suppose is pro-charter ideology in your response: If then .
That’s quite a impressive metaphysical argument!
But of course it is utter rot. From the view point of the reality-based community, the data being what it is, your dubious inference is false, that’s all.
It’s the next point that is more subtle though. Let’s be quite concrete. School A has high rates of SPED, low income, and English language deficient students. School B has substantially lower rates of all of these classes of challenging kids. Where would some arbitrary parents making a school choice want to send their kid?
Probably most such parents would prefer school B (with the charter school profile). That’s not surprising. What is surprising is that people who should know better, and whose responsibilities extend to include all students in public schools, should assume that this choice represents the basis of equitable public policy, of school reform.
It represents the abdication of equal educational opportunity to all public school students. And so we enter the era of charter schools, gated communities, and the ideology of private competition run amok.
11. Jim | December 19th, 2009 at 12:01 am
Ed: saltydog has changed plates, and hasn’t cleaned up anything. There are more minorities in charter schools in Boston, as I noted. And the poverty rates in Boston charters (ranging in the 60s and 70s) have not prevented them from performing very well. What Boston district schools outperformed the charters in the last MCAS round? The exam school where they get to pick students. Charters, as you well know, don’t get to choose students. You can write as long a comment as you want but the reality is for poor, minority students, there is no comparison in terms of performance between charters and district schools.
All charters in Boston are doing poorly? Gosh, you live in your own world. It is a pessimistic world where demography is deterministic. Happily, data shows that the real world is actually a better place. Go to RoxPrep, BostonPrep, the MATCH School, City on a Hill.
Maybe you should attend a lottery day for charters, and see the heartbreak in the faces of the hundreds of parents whose kids cannot get in to a charter. It might dissuade you from typing such nonsense and you might even gain a conscience. Shame on you. Really, I mean that.
12. Jim Stergios | December 19th, 2009 at 12:21 am
salty –
Students in charters are selected by lottery. It may be that charters could do a better job of marketing to SPED and ELL students. Happy to hear how and help make that happen, but they certainly are not shunning them. So your charge that they “shun” those students is nonsense. My point was two-fold: (1) That apples-to-apples comparisons of schools the majority of whose student bodies are poor and minority shows charters to perform better. See the 2006 DOE report, and see the Boston Foundation report. (2) If charters are shunning all these students, wouldn’t people get the sense that they are being shunned and stop applying? But, no, there are thousands (8,000 in Boston) of students on charter waiting lists. Same with METCO, where they want in to districts like Brookline, Newton, and Wellesley.
What is bizarre is that you trot out gated communities and private competition, when all you are doing is denying that someone can make a dent in the view that demography is not destiny. Please note that 2 of the more than 60 charters in Massachusetts are private. In most every other state the percentage is quite a bit higher.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed