Why Charter Schools Are Foolish Investments for States Facing Economic Challenges
Tag Archives: charter schools
Thomas: Charter schools not a smart investment for S.C. (The State, Columbia, SC)
Should SC Increase Charter School Investment?
Charter school advocates are calling for more investment from South Carolina, according to Jamie Self at The State (Columbia, SC):
South Carolina’s public charter schools struggle to find and pay for space, and often end up without access to kitchens, libraries, or places for kids to play – a problem the S.C. General Assembly needs to address, according to a new report.
The challenges that the state’s 49 brick-and-mortar public charter schools face are outlined in a new report, published with help from the Public Charter School Alliance of South Carolina by the Charter School Facilities Initiative, a partnership of federal and state charter school organizations.
Charter schools in SC, however, are proving to match the growing body of evidence that charter schools produce similar patterns of measurable student outcomes when compared to public schools and that charter schools share and even increase the rising re-segregation of schools in the U.S.
Should SC increase charter school investment? The short answer is, No. But to answer this question fully a few factors should be considered.
First, charter school advocacy is itself a problem; as I have explained before:
Like medicine, then, education and education reform will continue to fail if placed inside the corrosive dynamics of market forces. Instead, the reform of education must include the expertise of educators who are not bound to advocating for customers, but encouraged, rewarded and praised for offering the public the transparent truth about what faces us and what outcomes are the result of any and every endeavor to provide children the opportunity to learn as a member of a free and empowered people.
Education “miracles” do not exist and market forces are neither perfect nor universal silver bullets for any problem – these are conclusions made when we are free of the limitations of advocacy and dedicated to the truth, even when it challenges our beliefs.
Next, if charter schools are a fiscally responsible investment, they should be producing outcomes that distinguish themselves from traditional public schools. However, analyses from two years of report cards for charter schools in SC reveal the clear picture that more investment is not justified (see below for complete analysis of both years’ comparisons):
- Using 2011 SC state repost cards and the metric “Schools with Students Like Ours,” charter schools performed as follows: 3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical.
- Using 2013 SC state repost cards and the metric “Schools with Students Like Ours,” charter schools performed as follows: 2/52 ABOVE Typical, 20/52 Typical, 22/52 BELOW Typical.
In other words, almost all charter schools in SC perform about the same or worse than the public schools they are intended to either motivate through market forces to perform better or offer parents better options; neither is likely occurring.
SC should not invest further in charter schools, but should begin decreasing charters while also seeking ways to fund fully and equitably our community public schools—while also abandoning wasteful investments in new standards and testing.
CHARTER SCHOOLS ANALYSIS AND LINKS TO DATA
How Do Charter Schools Compare to “Schools with Students Like Ours” in South Carolina?
2013 — SC Charter School Report Card Performance Compared to “Schools with Students Like Ours”
Above Typical 2/52, Typical 20/52, Below Typical 22/52 (N/A 6/52, * 2)
SOUTH CAROLINA CHARTER SCHOOLS (COMPOSITE) 2012-2013
2013 SC CHARTER SCHOOL > DISTRICT
| Overall Weighted Points Total | 75.5 |
| Overall Grade Conversion | C |
| Points Total – Elementary Grades | 76.6 |
| Points Total – Middle Grades | 76.8 |
| Points Total – High School Grades | 70.5 |
|
Charter School or District |
ABOVE Typical |
Typical |
BELOW Typical |
| SC Public Charter School District |
|
|
X |
| CAPE ROMAIN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CHARTER SCHOOL Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| EAST POINT ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| IMAGINE COLUMBIA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| Royal Live Oak Academy of the Arts and Sciences Charter Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| SPARTANBURG CHARTER SCHOOL Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| CALHOUN FALLS CHARTER Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| PALMETTO SCHOLARS ACADEMY Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| Youth Leadership Academy Charter Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| Fox Creek High School Summary Full |
|
X |
|
| PALMETTO STATE E-CADEMY Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| PROVOST ACADEMY SOUTH CAROLINA Summary Full |
|
|
X |
| SC WHITMORE SCHOOL Summary Full |
|
N/A |
|
| Academy for Teaching and Learning |
|
|
X |
| Academy of Hope |
|
X |
|
| Aiken Performing Arts Academy |
|
|
X |
| Anderson Five Charter School |
|
N/A |
|
| Brashier Middle College |
X |
|
|
| Bridgewater Academy |
|
X |
|
| Carolina School for Inquiry |
|
X |
|
| Charleston Charter School for Math & Science |
|
|
X |
| Charleston Development Academy |
|
X |
|
| Children’s Attention Home |
|
* |
|
| CHOiCES |
|
X |
|
| Coastal Montessori |
|
|
X |
| Discovery School of Lancaster County |
|
|
X |
| East Montessori Charter School |
|
X |
|
| Legacy Charter School |
|
|
X |
| James Island Charter High School |
|
X |
|
| Langston Charter Middle School |
|
X |
|
| LEAD Academy |
X |
|
|
| Lloyd Kennedy Charter School |
|
|
X |
| Meyer Center for Special Children |
|
X |
|
| Midland Valley Preparatory School |
|
|
X |
| Midlands Math and Business Academy |
|
* |
|
| Orangeburg Consolidated School District Five Charter High School for Health Professions |
|
|
X |
| Orange Grove Elementary Charter School |
|
X |
|
| Palmetto Academy of Learning and Success |
|
X |
|
| Palmetto Academy of MotorSports |
|
N/A |
|
| Palmetto Youth Academy |
|
X |
|
| Pattison’s Academy for Comprehensive Education |
|
N/A |
|
| Phoenix Charter High School |
|
|
X |
| Richland One Middle College |
|
N/A |
|
| Richland Two Charter High School |
|
N/A |
|
| Riverview Charter School |
|
X |
|
| The Apple Charter School |
|
|
X |
| Youth Academy Charter School |
|
|
X |
* no data found
2011 — SC Charter School Report Card Performance Compared to “Schools with Students Like Ours”
Using the South Carolina School Report Card system and the state Poverty Index, the tables below list charter schools within the SC Public School Charter District and additional charter schools within public school districts to identify how charter schools in SC compare with “Schools with Students Like Ours” (a metric established by the SC Department of Education, see notes).
Conclusions
• Charter schools in SC have produced outcomes below and occasionally typical of outcomes of public schools; thus, claims of exceptional outcomes for charter schools in SC are unsupported by the data (3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical).
• Charter schools in SC vary widely in student populations relative to the Poverty Index; but high-poverty charter schools appear to function below typical compared to high-poverty public schools, and thus, offer rare examples of meeting the needs of high-poverty students superior to outcomes found in public schools.
• Charter school advocacy in SC should be measured against the available data when that advocacy makes claims of exceptional outcomes or outcomes superior to similar public schools.
• Student populations served, stratification of students, enrollment, attrition, teacher status, and teacher turnover remain areas of concern for current charter schools and considerations of expanding charter schools in the state.
2012 ESEA – SC Public School Charter District
| Overall Weighted Points Total | 69.7 |
| Overall Grade Conversion | D |
| Points Total – Elementary Grades | 80.6 |
| Points Total – Middle Grades | 79.1 |
| Points Total – High School Grades | 36.7 |
SC Public School Charter District – EAA School Report Cards 2011
District Summary District Full
|
Elementary |
Poverty Index |
Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (1) |
| LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMYAt-Risk/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
96.63 |
BELOW Typical 87/161 Average |
| MARY L DINKINS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
100 |
BELOW Typical 93/115 Average, Below Average |
| SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYAverage/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
64.7 |
BELOW Typical 68/83 Excellent, Good |
| SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAverage/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
73.22 |
BELOW Typical 68/108 Excellent, Good |
| SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
55.72 |
BELOW Typical 54/60 Excellent, Good |
| SPARTANBURG CHARTER SCHOOLGood/Good, AYP NM Summary Full |
55.21 |
BELOW Typical 33/58 Excellent |
| YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMYGood/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
29.56 |
BELOW Typical 18/19 Excellent |
|
Middle |
Poverty Index |
Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (2) |
| CALHOUN FALLS CHARTERBelow Average/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
89.34 |
BELOW Typical 30/58 Average |
| LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMYAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
96.63 |
BELOW Typical 37/62 Average, Below Average |
| MARY L DINKINS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
100 |
BELOW Typical 18/37 Average, Below Average |
| PALMETTO SCHOLARS ACADEMYExcellent/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
31.82 |
Typical 10/11 Excellent |
| SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYAverage/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
64.7 |
BELOW Typical 27/48 Excellent, Good |
| SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAverage/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
73.22 |
Typical 37/57 Average |
| SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
55.72 |
BELOW Typical 26/34 Excellent, Good |
| YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMYGood/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
29.56 |
BELOW Typical 10/11 Excellent |
|
High |
Poverty Index |
Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (3) |
| CALHOUN FALLS CHARTERAverage/N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
89.34 |
Typical 18/42 Average |
| MARY L DINKINS CHARTERN/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
100 |
N/A |
| PALMETTO STATE E-CADEMYAt-Risk/N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
65.06 |
BELOW Typical 38/40 Excellent, Good, Average |
| PROVOST ACADEMY SOUTH CAROLINAN/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
71.82 |
N/A |
| SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYBelow Average/N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
64.7 |
BELOW Typical 38/40 Excellent, Good, Average |
| SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
73.22 |
BELOW Typical 23/40 Average |
SC Charter Schools (outside SCPCSD)
|
School |
Poverty Index |
Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (1, 2, 3) |
| FOX CREEK HIGHExcellent/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
45.07 |
Typical 17/21 Excellent |
| CHARTER ACADEMY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNINGAverage/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
57.41 |
BELOW Typical 30/38 Excellent, Good |
| BRIDGEWATER ACADEMY CHARTERAverage/Excellent, AYP NM Summary Full |
74.36 |
BELOW Typical 65/110 Excellent, Good |
| PALMETTO ACADEMY OF LEARNING (E)Excellent/Average, AYP M Summary Full |
57.25 |
Typical 30/65 Excellent |
| PALMETTO ACADEMY OF LEARNING (M)Good/Average, AYP M Summary Full |
57.25 |
Typical 16/37 Good |
| AIKEN PERFORMING ARTS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP M Summary Full |
76.27 |
BELOW Typical 23/33 Average |
| KENNEDY/LLOYD CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/Below Average, AYP M Summary Full |
93.75 |
BELOW Typical 51/72 Average, Below Average |
| MIDLAND VALLEY CHARTER PREPARATORY SCHOOLBelow Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
79.63 |
BELOW Typical 43/59 Average |
| BRASHIER MIDDLE COLLEGE CHARTERExcellent/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
18.86 |
Typical 5/5 Excellent |
| LANGSTON CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOLExcellent/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
16.15 |
Typical 4/4 Excellent |
| LEAD ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
88.16 |
BELOW Typical 97/129 Average |
| MEYER CENTER FOR SPECIAL CHILDRENExcellent/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
94 |
Typical 8/10 Excellent |
| CAROLINA SCHOOL FOR INQUIRYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
85.22 |
BELOW Typical 89/124 Average |
| LEGACY CHARTER (ELEM)Below Average/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
87.31 |
BELOW Typical 97/125 Average |
| LEGACY CHARTER (MID)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
87.31 |
BELOW Typical 46/49 Average, Below Average |
| GREENVILLE TECHNICAL CHARTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
27.49 |
Typical 5/5 Excellent |
| GREER MIDDLE COLLEGE CHARTER SCHOOLExcellent/N/A, AYP M Summary Full |
21.48 |
Typical 5/5 Excellent |
| RICHLAND 1 CHARTER MIDDLE COLLEGEN/A Summary Full |
78.87 |
N/A |
| MIDLANDS MATH & BUSINESS CHARTER ACADEMY (E)Below Average/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
94.19 |
BELOW Typical 110/191 Average |
| MIDLANDS MATH & BUSINESS CHARTER ACADEMY (M)Below Average/Below Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
94.19 |
Typical 31/71 Below Average |
| CHARLESTON CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE (H)N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
57.91 |
N/A |
| CHARLESTON CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE (M)Average/Average, AYP NM Summary Full |
57.91 |
BELOW Typical 33/41 Excellent, Good |
| CHARLESTON DEVELOPMENTAL ACADEMY CHARTER (E)Good/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
91.96 |
ABOVE Typical 104/166 Average |
| CHARLESTON DEVELOPMENTAL ACADEMY CHARTER (M)Average/Average, AYP M Summary Full |
91.96 |
ABOVE Typical 43/70 Below Average, At-Risk |
| GREG MATHIS CHARTERAt-Risk/Below Average, N/A Summary Full |
98.94 |
Typical 6/14 At-Risk |
| JAMES ISLAND CHARTER HIGHExcellent/Excellent, AYP NM Summary Full |
47.22 |
Typical 18/26 Excellent |
| EAST COOPER MONTESSORI CHARTER (E)Excellent/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
13.54 |
Typical 7/7 Excellent |
| EAST COOPER MONTESSORI CHARTER (M)Excellent/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
13.54 |
Typical 3/3 Excellent |
| ORANGE GROVE CHARTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP NM Summary Full |
61.26 |
ABOVE Typical 32/68 Good |
| PATTISONS ACADEMY (E)N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
100 |
N/A |
| PATTISONS ACADEMY (M)N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
100 |
N/A |
| THE APPLE CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
95.73 |
BELOW Typical 99/187 Average |
| CHILDREN’S ATTENTION CHARTER (E)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
96.77 |
BELOW Typical 87/171 Average |
| CHILDREN’S ATTENTION CHARTER (M)N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
96.77 |
N/A |
| CHOICES (M)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM Summary Full |
92.73 |
BELOW Typical 47/65 Average, Below Average |
| CHOICES (H) N/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
92.73 |
N/A |
| DISCOVERY CHARTER OF LANCASTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP M Summary Full |
39.81 |
Typical 23/25 Excellent |
| PHOENIX CHARTER HIGH SCHOOLAt-Risk/Excellent, N/A Summary Full |
87.5 |
BELOW Typical 19/40 Average |
| PALMETTO YOUTH ACADEMYBelow Average/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
93.22 |
BELOW Typical 109/182 Average |
| RICHLAND TWO CHARTER HIGHN/A, AYP NM Summary Full |
N/A |
N/A |
| RIVERVIEW CHARTER SCHOOLGood/Good, AYP M Summary Full |
35.31 |
BELOW Typical 22/23 Excellent |
| YOUTH ACADEMY CHARTERN/A, AYP NMSummaryFull |
100 |
N/A |
(1) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011. Schools with Students Like Ours are Elementary Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.
(2) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011. Schools with Students Like Ours are Middle Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.
(3) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011. Schools with Students Like Ours are High Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.
When a “Visit” Trumps Expertise and Experience: A New Deal
I have already addressed the distortions and outright misinformation in a new piece on Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools. But a few issues raised in this claim of a “softer” side to “no excuses” practices need to be addressed more fully.
I have discovered that “no excuses” advocates now routinely push any critic about whether or not the critic has visited a KIPP school; note this paragraph early in the Education Next piece:
Also not surprisingly, KIPP and other No Excuses schools have no shortage of critics. Furman University education professor P. L. Thomas, who admitted in a recent speech at the University of Arkansas to never having been in a No Excuses charter school, complains in a widely referenced 2012 Daily Kos post that in such schools, “Students are required to use complete sentences at all times, and call female teachers ‘Miss’—with the threat of disciplinary action taken if students fail to comply.” Regarding KIPP in particular, Cambridge College professor and blogger Jim Horn, who admits to having never been inside a KIPP school, nonetheless has referred to KIPP as a “New Age eugenics intervention at best,” destroying students’ cultures, and a “concentration camp” at worst.
Horn and I are immediately marginalized because of the claims that we have never visited a KIPP school (for the record, I responded to a question about whether I have visited an Arkansas KIPP school, which I have not).
The push on the need to visit KIPP schools has raised two issues for me.
First, there are now abundant publications offering detailed evidence from many different people who have visited KIPP schools: Sarah Carr’s excellent Hope Agains Hope, Gary Rubinstein’s series on his visits, and Russ Walsh’s blog post, just to note a few.
Visiting a KIPP or “no excuses” school, it seems, doesn’t really change anything for those of us who hold foundational stances that reject the central ideology of “no excuses” practices. I reject authoritarianism regardless of the type of school in which it is practiced, and I abhor deficit perspectives, again regardless of the school type.
Whether I visit a school or rely on my analysis of other people’s details or data from “no excuses” schools, I am quite capable of drawing valid and evidence-based conclusions. And, frankly, I don’t have to ever set a foot in an actual school.
My best proof of this is the Education Next piece itself. While the authors believe they are discrediting the concerns of “no excuses” critics, the piece reinforces my central reasons for rejecting the policies, including the disturbing picture of three students participating in “Stereotypical Geek Day.” The picture itself feels exploitive and the activity, ridiculous.
That “no excuses” start out strict and ease off doesn’t excuse the abusive nature of the practices. And the larger concerns I have are not addressed at all: that minority and high-poverty students are disproportionately served and segregated from privileged and white students, that students wear uniforms, that “no excuses” schools tend to be selective and create a great deal of attrition, that KIPP schools are prone to hire Teach for America recruits (inexperienced and uncertified teachers for minority and impoverished students).
I remain opposed to all charter schools, not just “no excuses” charter schools, as well, and I reject any form of school choice.
Nothing in the Education Next article addresses that “other people’s children” are being served and treated in ways that affluent children are not; and that is my biggest complaint.
All children should have access to the sorts of schools and policies that affluent children enjoy. Period.
Second, however, is the more urgent issue I see with the insistence that “no excuses” critics visit “no excuses” schools: “no excuses” advocates and education reformers are overwhelmingly people who have never taught in public schools.
Is the new reformer message that visiting a school trumps having actually taught in a school?
If so, I propose a compromise:
No one can criticize a “no excuses” school unless she/he has visited the school and no one can lead education reform unless she/he has taught in public school.
“No excuses” advocates and reformers, deal?
Recommended: Hope Against Hope, Sarah Carr
I just read and reviewed Hope against Hope: Three Schools, One City, and the Struggle to Educate America’s Children by Sarah Carr, to be released February 26, 2013. I urge you to pre-order it.
Books on education tend to be deeply misguided and self-promoting or trapped in the “miracle” school/ “no excuses” memes that also dominate flawed education reform.
Diane Ravitch’s recent and upcoming books as well as Kathleen Nolan’s Police in the Hallways are rare exceptions.
I am surprised, then, and eager to recommend Carr’s wonderful narrative of post-Katrina education reform in New Orleans, a crucible of the keynotes of the newest reform movement invested in charter schools and Teach for America.
If you are skeptical of the new reforms and frustrated with the status quo of public education’s failure to address children and neighborhoods most in need, Carr’s book is a perfect story of three people living the reality of both.
See an excerpt at The Atlantic: “The Real Reason More Low-Income Students Don’t Go to College”
While reading, I also compiled a companion reading list, below:
Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School, Kathleen Nolan
http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/police-in-the-hallways
“More Challenges to Kirp’s ‘Miracle’ Narrative,” @ The Chalk Face, P. L. Thomas
http://atthechalkface.com/2013/02/15/more-challenges-to-kirps-miracle-narrative/
“Final Words of Advice,” “Where Do We Go from Here?” Martin Luther King Jr. (1967)
http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/King_Where.htm
Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom and “Multiplication Is for White People”: Raising Expectations for Other People’s Children, Lisa Delpit
http://thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_catalog&task=author&author_id=P14893
“Murky Waters: The Education Debate in New Orleans,” Truthout, Adam Bessie and Dan Archer
“The Teaching Profession as a Service Industry,” Daily Censored, P. L. Thomas
http://www.dailycensored.com/the-teaching-profession-as-a-service-industry/
“Is There a Christmas Miracle in School Reform Debate?” The Answer Sheet/The Washington Post, P. L. Thomas
“Unpacking TFA Support: Twisted Logic and Assumptions,” Schools Matter, P. L. Thomas
http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/12/unpacking-tfa-support-twisted-logic-and.html
“Current Education Reform Perpetuating, Not Curbing, Inequity,” the becoming radical, P. L. Thomas
“Lessons from the Zombie Apocalypse,” the becoming radical, P. L. Thomas
https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/lessons-from-the-zombie-apocalypse/
“Reconsidering Education ‘Miracles,’” OpEdNews, P. L. Thomas
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reconsidering-Education-M-by-P-L-Thomas-100816-438.html
“The New Layoff Formula Project,” The Shanker Blog, Matthew Di Carlo
http://shankerblog.org/?p=2377
The Mis-Education of the Negro, Carter Woodson
http://www.amazon.com/Mis-Education-Negro-Carter-Godwin-Woodson/dp/1440463506
“Poor Teaching for Poor Children in the Name of Reform,” Education Week, Alfie Kohn
http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/poor.htm
“The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching,” Phi Delta Kappan, Martin Haberman
https://www.ithaca.edu/compass/pdf/pedagogy.pdf
“’They’re All Our Children,’” AlterNet, P. L. Thomas
Charter Schools: A Primer
Stakeholders in education include virtually everyone in a democracy—students, parents, teachers, politicians, business leaders, the media, and more.
Historically, public education in the U.S. has experienced two continual popular narratives: (1) public schools are failing, and (2) [insert reform here] is needed to overhaul schools for (a) international competitiveness and (b) a stronger workforce.
Recently, charter schools have seen a significant rise in advocacy and implementation as a complex mechanism for reform. Along with that rise has come a new wave of research on the effectiveness of those charter schools, particularly as they compare with traditional public schools (TPS).
Most stakeholders in education receive their information about charter schools from the media; thus, when the media covers the charter school debate and research, the influence of those media accounts can be disproportional to the quality.
For example, The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) has taken a strong position for charter schools in SC: “But there is one area where the state has taken bold steps to improve education: charter schools.” However, an analysis of charter schools in SC that compares state report card data between those charter schools and TPS using the state metric of “Schools with Students Like Ours” revealed in 2012:
Charter schools in SC have produced outcomes below and occasionally typical of outcomes of public schools; thus, claims of exceptional outcomes for charter schools in SC are unsupported by the data (3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical).
Since the pattern of advocacy and implementation of charter schools includes a significant amount of support from political leaders, business leaders, the media, and advocates (such as charter-based organizations and think tanks), most stakeholders need a clear and accurate primer addressing what we currently know about charter school effectiveness, and that must be guided by this caution from Matthew Di Carlo:
There’s a constant barrage of data, reports and papers flying around, and sifting through it with a quality filter, as well as synthesizing large bodies of usually mixed evidence into policy conclusions, are massive challenges. Moreover, we all bring our pre-existing beliefs, as well as other differences, to the table. There are no easy solutions here.
But, one useful first step, at least in education, would be to stop pointing fingers and acknowledge two things. First, neither ‘side’ has anything resembling a monopoly on the misuse of evidence. And, second, such misuse has zero power if enough people can identify it as such.
One overarching point needs to be made about the charter school debate first. Charter advocacy and criticism both too often fail in their use of data, as Di Carlo warns, but both also make another mistake, ignoring the evidence base entirely.
What, then, is the current state of evidence on charter school effectiveness? [1] And, how do charter schools address, or not, clearly identified problems and goals of TPS—including what questions and concerns remain in the context of what the evidence suggests about charter school effectiveness?
• Research has repeatedly shown that measurable outcomes (test scores, graduation rates, college admissions rates, etc.) from charter schools produce about the same range of quality as TPS (and private schools) and that the type of school structure (charter v. TPS) appears not to be a determining factor in the outcomes with the demographics of the students and the community remaining powerful correlations with those outcomes.
• Claims of “miracle” schools fail to stand up under close scrutiny, but even if outliers exist in charter schools, outliers exist in TPS and private schools as well, and thus, outliers may prove to be ineffective models for scaling any success.
• Charter schools do not appear to address and often seem to mirror or increase key problems with TPS: (a) teacher assignment (high-needs students assigned to inexperienced and un-/under-certified teachers), (b) class and racial segregation, (c) selectivity and attrition of students, (d) teacher turnover and retention [“churn”], (e) concerns about excluding the most difficult sub-categories of high-needs students [English language learners, special needs students, highest-poverty students, students from home that cannot or will not pursue choices].
• Charter school student outcomes are often complicated by issues of selectivity, attrition, and scalability.
• Some charter school ideologies—notably “no excuses” policies—trigger concerns about classism and racism that are rarely weighed against data.
• Charter schools (along with school choice and home schooling) introduce problems concerning athletic participation as well as a wide range of extracurricular participation in TPS.
• Charter schools also complicate already stressed and controversial TPS funding policies and agendas.
The charter school debate seems to warrant a similar caution that many other reforms now deserve, including VAM-style teacher evaluation. As Di Carlo explains:
As discussed in a previous post, there is a fairly well-developed body of evidence showing that charter and regular public schools vary widely in their impacts on achievement growth. This research finds that, on the whole, there is usually not much of a difference between them, and when there are differences, they tend to be very modest. In other words, there is nothing about “charterness” that leads to strong results.
With commitments to charter schools, many policy makers are moving too quickly and failing to examine the evidence so far along with weighing that evidence against clearly defined problems with TPS and specifically identified goals for the reforms.
—–
[1] A number of studies inform the list above. Readers are invited to examine a wide array of research and reports listed below, but also urged to search for new evidence:
Charter Schools Not the Answer, Especially if We Fail to Identify the Question, P. L. Thomas
Comparing Teacher Turnover In Charter And Regular Public Schools, Matthew Di Carlo
Charter Schools posts at The Shanker Blog
Search “charter schools” at NEPC
Charter Schools posts at School Finance 101 (Bruce Baker)
Charter Schools research at NCSPE
Search “charter schools” at EPAA
Revisiting Legend of the Fall Series
With the seemingly never-ending media attention paid to Michelle Rhee, I want to share my Legend of the Fall series first posted at Daily Censored during late 2010 and early 2011 (posts confront Rhee [see Parts II and III], Bill Gates, and Geoffrey Canada’s roles in corporate/”no excuses” reform). I regret that much of this remains relevant:
Legend of the Fall
Part I
Thomas, P. L. (2010, October 19). Legend of the fall: Snapshots of what’s wrong in the education debate. The Daily Censored.
Part II
—–. (2010, December 2). The education celebrity tour: Legend of the fall, pt. II. The Daily Censored.
Part III
—–. (2010, December 17). Fire teachers, reappoint Rhee: Legend of the fall, pt. III. The Daily Censored.
Part IV
—–. (2010, December 28). Wrong questions = wrong answers: Legends of the fall, pt. IV. The Daily Censored.
Part V
—–. (2011, January 10). Supermen or kryptonite?—Legend of the fall, pt. V. The Daily Censored.
Part VI
—–. (2011, February 27). Celebrity “common sense” reform for education–Legend of the fall pt. VI. The Daily Censored.
Part VII
—–. (2011, May 14). Maher’s “Real Time” education debate failure redux: Legend of the Fall, pt. VII. The Daily Censored.