Charter School Debate
Charter Schools Do More Good
Side Score: 20
|
 |
Charter Schools Do More Harm
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
The question of whether charter schools do more harm than good, must be first begin through a clear discussion of the core parametric which define the terms for the debate. Outlining how the debate will be weighted is critical, as there are a number of different of methods in which we can assess “harm”, particularly when we consider who harms is directed --- students, parents, communities, traditional public schools, larger school reform efforts, etc.? The direction of the harm is important to understand when discussing charter schools, as it is impossible to draw generalizable conclusions about the effect of charter schools, particularly when characterizing harm, as any debate will fall into a number of logical fallacies, particularly synecdoche fallacies, which a few empirical studies (both pro and anti-charter) will be used to justify their positioning. For the purposes of this debate, I will define the key terms that parametricize my position that “charter schools do more good” than harm, when considering the purpose of charter schools in urban areas 1) to improve student achievement in urban communities with concentrated poverty; 2) close achievement gaps between affluent white demographics and underserved subgroups within these areas (black or African America, Hispanic or Latino, etc); and 3) spur innovation within the traditional public school sector in urban communities (Winters, 2012). It is important to note that the qualifier I am using to parametricize my argument is the signifier “urban”, particularly as it applies to our specialization within the program. Second, harm is defined narrowly in the scope of my argument, as the prompt asks us to look at the body of evidence surrounding charter schools and to weight the good versus the harm, not to assume a world where charter schools do not exist. First, it is important understand that there are a number of different types of charter schools, including non-profit, for-profit charter schools, independently run charter schools, charter schools that are part of a larger network of schools, etc. Additionally, charter schools also have a number of different pedagogical foci, ranging from more progressive charter schools to charter schools that ascribe to a “no-excuses” philosophy. A recent Brookings Institute Report (2016) found that charter schools with a strong academic focus and a “no-excuses” philosophy that serve poor black and Hispanic students in urban areas stand as a contradictions to the general association between school-level poverty and academic achievement. These very high-poverty, high-minority schools produce achievement gains that are substantially greater than the traditional public schools in the same catchment areas. The greater success of the “no-excuses” charters in raising student achievement and their disproportionally large impact on low-income, high-minority student populations provide further evidence that school quality is a primary mediator of academic achievement rather than the racial or economic makeup of a school’s student body. Second, charter schools in urban communities, on balance, have been shown to dramatically close achievement gaps comparative to traditional public schools serving similar urban populations. A CREDO report (2015) examined 41 regions focusing on urban charter schools and found important findings, first that urban charter schools in the aggregate provide significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers. Specifically, students enrolled in urban charter schools experience 0.055 standard deviations greater growth in math and 0.039 s.d.’s greater growth in reading per year than their matched peers in TPS. These results translate to urban charter students receiving the equivalent of roughly 40 days of additional learning per year in math and 28 additional days of learning per year in reading. Additionally, the report noted that “when learning gains for urban charter students are presented for individual urban regions, regions with larger learning gains in charter schools outnumber those with smaller learning gains two-to-one” (CREDO, 2015). Lastly, the report found that Learning gains for charter school students are larger by significant amounts for Black, Hispanic, low-income, and special education students in both math and reading (Maul, 2015). It is important to note that the report did draw distinctions between the urban regions studies compared to the entire charter landscape, suggesting that charter schools when examined as a whole might draw different conclusions. However, this qualifier is not in the scope of the argument that I am defending at the moment. Third, charter schools in urban communities have spurred innovation in their traditional public school counterparts. While charter school laws and regulations vary from state to state, one defining characteristic of charter schools in urban communities is their freedom to build and change programs as they see fit. For example, charter schools in urban areas have spurred a number of dramatic reforms such as the movement toward intentionally diverse schooling. The school desegregation movement (particularly around socio-economic integration) has largely been stalled by various court ruling (see Milliken v. Bradley in Detroit). Charter schools, with their ability to influence school composition through “set-asides” in the lottery process and other innovations have been able to desegregate their schools (Kahlenberg & Potter, 2012). This is not to say that there is not deep segregation in the current charter school system, but there are a number of schools, particularly through National Coalition of Intentionally Diverse Charter Schools that have used their innovation practices to help desegregate their schools and to set a model for future desegregation efforts (Russo, 2013). References CREDO (2015). Urban Charter School Study Report on 41 Regions. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. Kahlenberg, R., & Potter, H. (2012). Diverse Charter Schools: Can Racial and Socioeconomic Integration Promote Better Outcomes for Students?. Century Foundation. Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American educational research journal, 40(2), 395-443. Maul, A. (2015). Review of urban charter school study 2015. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved May, 11, 2017. Russo, A. (2013). Diverse charter schools. Education Next, 13(1). Whitehurst, G. J., Reeves, R. V., & Rodrigue, E. (2016). Segregation, race, and charter schools: What do we know. Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families at Brookings. Retrieved November, 5(2016), 14. Winters, M. A. (2012). Measuring the effect of charter schools on public school student achievement in an urban environment: Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education review, 31(2), 293-301. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
This session introduces the debate over whether charter schools are helpful or harmful to our education system in the U.S. Proponents of the school choice movement cite academic improvement and rigor as a reason to support charter schools. Gill (2016) compared 11 different studies of the effects of charter schools on student achievement and offers that more of these studies indicated positive trends for charter school students in terms of achievement. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
When considering the concept of charter schools as a whole, while acknowledging that all charter schools are not monolithic, charter schools do more good than harm in terms of the following: (1) Establishing schools of choice in the monopoly-esque driven traditional public school system; (2) Encourage innovation in a system stymied by institutionalism; and (3) In some cases offers better academic alternatives to students that have been relegated by their zip code to attend historically poor performing traditional public schools. Before the expansion of the charter school sector, parents in suburban, urban, and rural communities across the country were met with the choice to send their students to the neighborhood school or to pay for their children's education if they were to attend private schools. For parents that cannot pay for their children to attend private schools charter schools provide an alternative to the traditional public neighborhood school. Competition between local traditional public schools and charter schools can be fierce where both types of schools are fighting to attract parents and students to attend their schools to receive unique benefits and a rigorous academic experience. Both charter and traditional public schools have to continue to improve the quality of their educational program to remain open within the education sector and as a byproduct students win out because both types of schools are motivated to provide the best education to their students. Without this competition, charter and traditional public schools will have little motivation to change business as usual. This was the case with the Dallas Independent School District that expanded their Collegiate Academies to compete with a growing charter school presence in the southern sector of Dallas (Hacker, 2016). This move by the district that already offers a comprehensive secondary experience for students (e.g., sports, clubs, partnerships with industries) sent to charter schools in that region scrambling to boost their academic programming and marketing of their schools (Hacker, 2016). As an employee of Charter Management Organization (CMO), I have seen first hand the nimbleness and lack of bureaucracy that allow for quick changes and innovation within a charter network. When contrasting that experience to my experience working in a large urban traditional public school district, changes in curriculum, teaching support, financial processes move much slower and are less likely to be changed drastically over time. For example, charter schools have been able to be more responsive and have broadened the prospect of students beyond college graduation (Sanchez, 2015). In the last ten or so years many charter schools boast that all of their students have been accepted to college, ten years later the narrative has shifted to ensuring that their high school graduates persist and graduate from college. Some charter schools and networks have robust college counseling departments that include alumni support (Sanchez, 2015). Traditional public high schools rarely offered the type of intentional support to students around applying for college and spend very few dollars in support of alumni college persistence (Sass, Zimmer, Gill, & Booker, 2016). The charter approach to college admissions and persistence has forced some traditional public school districts to reconsider their approach to college admissions by hiring staff members that support students through the admissions process (Sass, Zimmer, Gill, & Booker, 2016). This type of charter innovation helps all students to win because of its influence on the practice of schools within the traditional public school sector. For students that live in communities with low performing traditional public schools, charter schools provide an option for these students to attend a charter school that may offer a more challenging academic experience (Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes, 2015). Traditional public school districts often offer schools of choice within their districts such as magnet schools or performing arts schools, that in turn leave neighborhood schools fleeced of academically talented students. It appears as if some traditional public school districts acknowledge a need for choice for gifted and talented students but not for all students. However, traditional public school proponents are not angered by these choice options but angered by ones that offer an academic experience for all students regardless of their academic profile. One has to wonder if the fight against charters is another effort to preserve the institution of the traditional public school from yet another innovation? References Hacker, H. (January 26, 2016). North Texas charter schools on the rise as critics oppose new Dallas campus. Dallas News. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dallasnews.com/news/ Sanchez, M. (2015). Charter Schools Stress College-Going Support. The Education Digest, 81(3), 60. Sass, T. R., Zimmer, R. W., Gill, B. P., & Booker, T. K. (2016). Charter High Schools’ Effects on Long‐Term Attainment and Earnings. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(3), 683-706. Stanford University Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2015). Urban charter school study: Report on 41 regions. Retrieved from https://urbancharters.stanford.edu/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
An ongoing challenge, in the educational system of the U.S., centers on the level of academic achievement for Black and Latino students. Charter schools hold the key to solving the academic success gap of Black and Latino students when compared to their White peers. The Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) provides evidence that charter schools benefit Black and Latino students (CREDO, 2015). First, Black and Latino students in urban charter schools demonstrate greater academic growth when compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools (CREDO, 2015). Second, Black and Latino students showed significant positive gains in math and reading while attending urban charter schools (CREDO, 2015). San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) was founded in 1854 and has grown from a single, small building to a total of 238 traditional, alternative, and charter schools (SDUSD, 2016). SDUSD is the second largest school district in the state of California serving more than 130,000 students in pre-school through grade 12 and is the second largest district in California (SDUSD, 2016). There are currently 49 charter schools within SDUSD (Magee, 2016). One-fifth of students in the district are enrolled charters, and this figure is expected to increase to 30% within the next ten years (Magee, 2016). The growth in charter schools in the district is linked to the positive gains in achievement for marginalized students. There is the opportunity to level the playing field for students not historically viewed as high achievers. Urban charter schools are not only narrowing the achievement gap for Black and Latino students; they are preventing academic disparities for other marginalized students. Charter schools surpass graduation rates and access to college for Black and Latino students (CCSA, 2017). There are over six million K-12 students in the state of California, and 76% of students are categorized as students of color (California Department of Education, 2016). In California, of those students who graduated in May 2014 only 32% of the 200,000 Latino/Hispanic students met the eligibility requirements to enter a four-year state public institution (California Department of Education, 2016). For the approximately 26,000 African-American students in California who graduated in 2014, 69% did not meet the requirements for admission to a four-year college or university (California Department of Education, 2016). Nearly, twice as many Black and Latino students were eligible and accepted to attend four-year universities in California than Black and Latino students in traditional public schools (CCSA, 2017) California Charter School Association (2017). African American Student Performance in Charters. Retrieved from http://www.ccsa.org/understanding/ California Department of Education (2016) Calfastfacts [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ Center for Research on Education Outcomes (2015). Urban Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions. Magee, M. February 18, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/local/education/ San Diego City Schools. (1954). 100 years of public education in San Diego, July 1, 1854 to June 30, 1954. San Diego, Calif: San Diego Unified School District. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Hi, Tiveeda! I think that it is important to clarify that SOME charter schools hold the key to solving academic gaps with Black and Latino children...but without regulation, this is not always the case (Amanda shares some of this data on the "against" side). But, (and this is truly a question, and not me being smart, hehe) if charter schools are the answer for minority students, then why has the NAACP filed so many lawsuits in opposition of charters? Is this a political move? Due to lack of understanding by those not in education? I just can't understand why an organization, created for the advancement of Black individuals/students, would be so adamantly against a movement that, with your argument, would greatly benefit those they represent. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
1
point
Remy, I agree with your terms for charter schools doing more good than harm. In particular, I think that it is good to have charter schools to allow for more school choice specially for students who have been retrained based on their zip code and SES. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Arguably, the jury is still out on whether or not charter schools, in their current form, are beneficial (Gill, 2016). Indeed, a joint evaluation project by MPR and the IES found that the KIPP middle school program had negative, but “not statistically significant” impacts (Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, and Silverberg, 2015, p. 419), while CREDO found that most charter schools “[provided] significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers” (CREDO, 2015, p. v). Maybe it doesn’t really matter. The charter school question isn’t just limited to KIPP or Green Dot anymore. There are parent participation, progressive charter schools. There are international, multilingual charter schools. Perhaps their collective effect is no longer measurable, or perhaps a collective measure of efficacy is no longer relevant. It’s time to break out of a binary view of the charter school issue, and look at the greater good of our next generation’s education. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools states that charter schools, in addition to being able to design programs as their founders see fit to further student learning, should also “share what works with the broader public school system so that all students benefit” (http://www.publiccharters.org/ How can we, as educational professionals responsible for our next generation’s learning, advocate for more progress-oriented thinking? I argue that we need to start with looking at the relationships between charter and traditional public schools, and make sure that communication and collaboration between these organizations is happening in earnest. We need to make sure that school leadership, on both sides, are open to working together. We also need to make sure that children in all schools are receiving a holistic, balanced curriculum, not just one that will generate splashy tweets touting huge gains in test scores. Let’s reframe our question from whether or not charter schools are beneficial, to what benefits our students. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Yes, we advocate first for the child. Part of that advocacy is finding organizational frameworks that best serve the child. So, the argument of whether charter schools are beneficial is a good one, I think. But, I agree that evaluating schools on such a narrow range of measures ignores that learning takes place within the context of and in relationship to children's emotional, physical, and social development. One advantage of charter schools, at least the one where I work, is that students have a long recess, open art, daily meditation, and also there is an emphasis on emotional development. Although our students do not always do as well on tests in the lower levels, their middle-school scores are strong. I do not think that means that the middle-school is a better place to be than the elementary school. I see us working together to support long-term student growth. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
So, first, I wasn't really sure which button to click (support, dispute, or clarify) because I agree with what you say...and it almost seems as if you don't take side per say, but rather point to solutions for better collaboration between charter and traditional public schools for the purpose of putting students and their needs first. And AMEN to that! But your comment about parent participation schools sparked a thought. I went to a lecture by Eva Moskowitz (she is the founder of Success Academy Charter Schools, claimed to be some of the most successful charters in the country) last night and she brought up the point of parent participation...and I almost felt as if it were a little discriminatory. She talked about how, in educating the students in her schools, she expects parents to make sure that homework is done each night, that parents return phone calls, and that, when up against opposition to the school, that parents be there to protest...literally march and protest. She didn't outright say it, but I do wonder the consequences for students if their parents do not hold up their end of her deal. Are they kicked out? I know that every one of my students' parents love and care about them...and would do whatever possible to give the best for them. HOWEVER, I also know that their circumstances often require them to work three and four jobs in order to pay rent and feed their children. So while I would love for these same parents to be able to give their children the same academic support that students in more affluent schools likely receive, I know this isn't an option for my students and their families. Does it mean that my students' parents care less? Want less for their child? Absolutely not! But it does create a barrier and stress (and possibly discrimination) for parents wanting to send their children to schools who are supposedly designed to support students and families like theirs. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Hi Casey, I actually posted my argument on both sides, the brat that I am. I think the question around charter schools is more complex than a yes or no answer. But to your points--you are correct in pointing out that there is a degree of barriers to access that families experience when choosing a charter school. But one could argue that this is the point, that like-minded parents go to schools where the educational program suits what they think is best for their kids. However, in the case of charters asking for parent involvement, I think traditional schools (ideally) want this as well; but, some parent participation programs have to make it clear upfront that their program is predicated on parent participation at the school, or in some other capacity. In the case of the charter school I worked at, since it was a public charter parents could not be denied admission, or even counseled out because of inability to work with the program. They were expected to attend parent meetings, etc., but the school was expected to be "flexible" in how parents contributed to the school. This reflects Epstein's framework of different forms of parent participation. To your final point--absolutely, parents show involvement through different behaviors, and this involvement is often embodied very differently once one enters culture into the equation (Doucet, 2012; Epstein, 2012). This is actually the area of my research in our program! How to ensure that parents who want to participate in some way are able to. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Oh, Casey. You speak my mind. I do wonder if students are held accountable for their parent's participation. Perhaps, Moskowitz simply has a strong approach/speaking style. I am pretty sure that she could not enforce how parents participate. Even so, why make parents feel inadequate if they, like you mentioned, are supporting in the ways that make the most sense for their family. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
1
point
In my opinion, I think that charter schools do more good than harm especially in regards to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. According to Bill (2016), 6 out of 11 cases showed revealed positive results for students attending charter schools while 4 out of 11 cases showed no effects, and only 1 case revealed negative results. Furthermore, Bill (2016) indicated that 8 out of 9 cases revealed that charter schools have no effect on students who attend other schools within the same district while only one case was shown to have a negative effect on student achievement within that school. This supports the notion that charter schools cannot be doing more harm than good. In addition, Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, and Silverberg (2015) revealed that math achievement was more positive for students from disadvantaged backgrounds when they attended a charter school. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Hi Briauna, Were positive results shown in charter schools that were "self-selected"? The reason I ask is because in a system like Chicago's students are enrolled if the space allows whereas other charters can pick and choose who they'd like to attend. Allie Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
2
points
Briauna, Were there only increased scores in math achievement?Any other increases or statistically significant changes from the latter students that attended charter schools? How significant were the changes in math achievement? Curious to see any limitations or confounding factors (including school selection, SES and out of school activities)for these students....... Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
1
point
The charter school debate is highly contentious, with evidence that could easily push someone to one side of the argument or the other. For the purposes of this exercise, I am going to lean into the point that charter schools at the very least, as a whole, do little harm but can, in the right contexts, do a lot of good. As evidenced by the arguments presented by Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, and Silverberg (2015) and Credo (2014), charter schools can make statistically significant gains for students from disadvantaged backgrounds in urban environments. Further, Gill (2016) posits that there is little empirical evidence to support a negative impact on students who do not attend charters. However, as with traditional schools, this debate ultimately comes down to a school-by-school basis, as some charters such as KIPP can provide significant gains, whereas others woefully underperform (Clark et al., 2015; Gill, 2016; Credo, 2014). Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Hi, Rae! I would agree that, based on the set of readings for this session, there was not much evidence that chart schools did harm. But I want to challenge that idea beyond the readings. What about the charter schools who under-perform traditional public schools in the district? Would the students attending those charters, in fact, do better at a TPS? Or the charter schools who participate in "creaming", or only picking the top students...do they do harm by only choosing the "elite" to attend their schools? I do think that some charters have been able to support students in making significant statistical gains, but I don't think we can let those successes overshadow some of the challenges caused by other charters. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
I completely agree that the readings lend themselves to suggesting that charters haven't done more harm than good. However, I would like to challenge your question about underperforming charters. While I would 100% support students attending a successful TPS rather than a failing charter, the reality is that charters were started because the traditional system was not always successful. In places such as Baltimore City, a student is just as likely to be at a failing charter as a failing TPS. Further, I work with quite a few charters in my line of work and I have to say, none of them have entrance criterias and the work they are able to do to support kids is phenomenal. This isn't to say that there aren't failing charters, because there are, just like we also have failing traditional schools. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
|
In the ongoing debate about the value of charter schools, there has been research to indicate that the academic results for charter schools is mixed. For example, a study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (2009) found that the effectiveness of charter schools widely varied from state to state. Given the mixed results, it cannot be said that charter schools definitively improve the quality of education for students in our country. In fact, some are doing the opposite. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
How do charters differ from traditional schools in this regard? Given the success of many charters in particular geographic regions, would you suggest that all charters were eliminated due to their mixed results nationally or that they are confined to urban environments where the model is seeing gains? Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
While the articles assigned for this session mostly support (or at least do not demonstrate harm) charters, I do not feel like they tell the entire story. In a New York Times article, they specifically call out the Credo report out of Stanford University for using flawed methodology (Gabor, 2015, Aug 22). At least for students in the New Orleans Charters, there were very few "twins" for comparison data to be drawn. The other two articles assigned for this week discuss lottery-based admissions to charters. However, this is not necessarily the standard method for admitting students. Some charter schools hand select students, a process called "creaming", whom they believe will produce high test scores. This is inequitable, leaving students with lower achievement scores (and students receiving Special Education or ESOL services) without this opportunity (Strauss, 2014, May 20). Other issues relate to the funding of charter schools. As described in The Washington Post article by Strauss (2014, May 20), there is often a lack of transparency in the funding of charter schools, they drain financial resources from districts, there can be corruption without accountability, and some charter schools are publicly traded, raising the question of who the most important stakeholder is (student or stockholder). How is any of this good for students? While I do believe that there needs to be a reform in public educational systems, I do not believe that charters are the way to do this...at least not without most stringent regulations and oversight. Instead of charters, why can't we use the strategies and teaching that students are responding to in charters and implement them in public schools where ALL students are guaranteed access and opportunity? References Additional to This Week's Readings Gabor, A. (2015, Aug 22). The myth of the New Orleans school makeover. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/ Strauss, V. (2014, May 20). A dozen problems with charter schools. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ -Casey Schurman Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
According to Gill (2016), proponents of charter schools have hoped that they will positively affect students in district-operated schools, by creating innovative approaches that district schools can borrow, and by producing healthy competitive pressure on district schools that would otherwise hold a local monopoly. In the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), echoing an earlier post, Gill’s (2016) argument could be interpreted and supported by the fact that district magnet schools outperform charter schools. In mathematics, 28% of students in charters met or exceeded standards, compared to 33% statewide and 25% in LAUSD. For students at magnets, 44% met or exceeded standards when all grades were combined, higher than the state average. When examined by grade level, magnets were higher at all grade levels than the state average, charters and LAUSD averages. In grade 6, 21% of charter students met or exceeded standards, compared to 24% in LAUSD. In Grade 7, performance of charters was on par with LAUSD at 24%. Of the 192 LAUSD magnet schools and centers, 37 are for gifted or highly gifted students. However when overall scores are disaggregated by gifted or highly gifted magnets, students at magnets still out-performed the charter and state of California average, when all grade levels are combined. These data in the aggregate, however, support Clark’s (2016) conclusion that, on average, the charter schools in the study and in the LAUSD have negative but non-significant impacts on student achievement in reading and math when compared to public schools. Therefore, charters may not necessarily do harm, but are no better than public schools. Clark, M. A., Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., & Silverberg, M. K. (2015). Do charter schools improve student achievement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714558292 Gill, B. (2016, November 2). The effects of charter schools on students in traditional public schools: A review of the evidence. Retrieved from [http://educationnext.org/the-effect-of-charter-schools-on-students-in-traditional-public-schools-a-review-of-the-evidence/] Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Hi Bradley, You make an interesting addition to the debate regarding charter schools by including magnet schools in the debate. Although I don’t have experience with magnet schools in LA, it seems that the process is creating the biased situation which charter schools are often accused of creating. According to the LA Times, students not currently enrolled, work to earn up to 12 points to gain entrance into the magnet school. Each year a student applies and doesn’t get into a magnet, they earn four points. in magnet school gain four points for every year that they apply to a magnet school and students can receive four points for living in the neighborhood zone of an overcrowded school. Another four points can be allotted for living within the neighborhood boundaries of a "predominantly Latino, Black, Asian and other non-White school” and three points for having a sibling in a magnet school. Of the 210+ magnet schools in LAUSD, at least 50 of them are for GATE students only. There appear to be more segregating criteria to get into magnet school than exist for charter schools. Similar obstacles exist to entering magnet schools in San Diego Unified School District. The best, and most popular, magnet schools have historically been located in high-income neighborhoods in SDUSD. Priority has always been given to families who reside in the district of the magnet schools, making them economically and racially exclusive enclaves. Even good magnets schools in areas with more people of color and lower incomes are too saturated for more than a handful of outside applicants get into school. Charter schools for San Diego, at least, are open lotteries with the only criteria is that the applying student live within the county or district. Charters are to select by distribution of slots based on zip code and gender equity. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
1
point
Hi Brad, Based upon your post, are you suggesting that magnet schools are better options than charter and traditional schools? Do you think that this is the case only in California or nationwide? Should we focus our comparison on magnet schools and charter schools instead of focusing on charter schools in comparison to traditional public schools? Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Arguably, the jury is still out on whether or not charter schools, in their current form, are beneficial (Gill, 2016). Indeed, a joint evaluation project by MPR and the IES found that the KIPP middle school program had negative, but “not statistically significant” impacts (Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, and Silverberg, 2015, p. 419), while CREDO found that most charter schools “[provided] significantly higher levels of annual growth in both math and reading compared to their TPS peers” (CREDO, 2015, p. v). Maybe it doesn’t really matter. The charter school question isn’t just limited to KIPP or Green Dot anymore. There are parent participation, progressive charter schools. There are international, multilingual charter schools. Perhaps their collective effect is no longer measurable, or perhaps a collective measure of efficacy is no longer relevant. It’s time to break out of a binary view of the charter school issue, and look at the greater good of our next generation’s education. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools states that charter schools, in addition to being able to design programs as their founders see fit to further student learning, should also “share what works with the broader public school system so that all students benefit” (http://www.publiccharters.org/ How can we, as educational professionals responsible for our next generation’s learning, advocate for more progress-oriented thinking? I argue that we need to start with looking at the relationships between charter and traditional public schools, and make sure that communication and collaboration between these organizations is happening in earnest. We need to make sure that school leadership, on both sides, are open to working together. We also need to make sure that children in all schools are receiving a holistic, balanced curriculum, not just one that will generate splashy tweets touting huge gains in test scores. Let’s reframe our question from whether or not charter schools are beneficial, to what benefits our students. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Kipp, great points made here! I had not even fully considered the lack of engagement and relationship between charter and public schools. Rather than argue of charter schools are better, effective or needed..it seems you are asking how they can play better with public schools. My question for you, is how to best frame this need? One may view the other as stealing its funding and students...how do we bounce back from this to have both entities meet peacefully? Should we highlight how each entity can benefit specific needs for various students? What do you see as the strengths of each that can be leveraged and shared as best practices? Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Hi Khaliah, you hit the nail right on the nose. Head? This is why I call for the reframing of the entire question--there's so much animosity within the current system of managing charters and their relationships with public school districts, that maybe the question has to take a larger view, and delve even deeper into the fabric of the public education landscape to find a solution. Of course, abolishing the entire public system isn't the answer, nor is abolishing charter schools. Bradley brought up the success of district magnet schools, and how statistically they out-perform charter schools. If we look at the relationship between a district magnet school and the mother district, they share funding, resources, and sometimes teachers and administrators. They get site renovations in a timely manner. They get sites to begin with! Not so all the time with charter schools. There's not this continuity that magnet schools (most of the time, anyway -- since magnet schools sometimes will try to distance themselves from their districts) have. Some will argue that the magnet school structure doesn't offer enough leeway for true innovation. This may be true... So, to answer your question, I think we might need to return to our previous discussion last session on how the school district is organized, and how innovation is (or isn't!) encouraged in schools, and on how teachers are trained to be forward thinkers responsive to students, or to be warm bodies to have students open to page 47, which correlates to Dream box and Khan academy. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
My state, Michigan, is one example of how charter schools can do more harm than good. In 1994, led by a conservative governor with an economic worldview of education, Michigan began a state-wide pro-charter school movement in an attempt to close the achievement gap between the state’s wealthy and poor school districts, and was just the second school in the nation to do so (two years behind Minnesota). By 2000, Michigan had 184 charter schools, more than any state but Arizona and California (Miron and Nelson, 2015). Now, in 2017, 10% of all Michigan school students are enrolled in a charter school; only Arizona and Colorado have a higher percentage than this (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2017). The abundance of charter schools did not increase student achievement. In fact, 70 percent of Michigan charters are in the bottom half of the state’s “top to bottom” ranking list (Education Trust Midwest, 2016). Overall, the k-12 education system is one of the weakest in the nation. Since the charter school movement gained prominence, Michigan went from being average in elementary reading and math achievement to in the bottom 10 states (Binelli, 2017). Charter schools also have not helped close the achievement gap in Michigan. In fact, Michigan was at the center of a report released by the NAACP because charter schools have actually increased the achievement gap in urban areas. In Detroit, for example, more than half of the children attend charter schools, but most of those students are white. Minority students are being left behind in struggling public schools, and the students who “escaped” haven’t fared any better: Detroit public school students AND charter school students were at the very bottom of national assessment rankings in 2016 (Jackson, 2017). The prevalence of charter schools has also created marked funding disparities in Michigan school districts. Arsen, DeLuca, Ni, and Bates (2015) studied every school in Michigan with an enrollment of over 100 since the charter school legislation in 1994. They discovered that the biggest financial impact on schools was the result of declining enrollment and revenue loss from charter school enrollment. Specifically, since 1994, students leaving public schools for charter schools has caused a 22% reduction in per-pupil funding. With adjustment for inflation, that is a loss of 46% of school revenue in the last 13 years. Michigan also very recently passed statewide legislation requiring a portion of personal property millages to go to local charter schools instead of public schools, which will create further funding disparities, especially in districts with lower tax bases. Furthermore, charter schools leave behind students that cost more to educate, like at-risk and special education students. Arsen, DeLuca, Ni, and Bates (2015) also found that as the percentage of students in a district that go to charters increases, so goes the percentage of students who are left behindnand receiving special needs services, which can be costly to provide. In this way, not only do charter schools change school enrollment numbers, they also change the composition of the student body at the public schools in the district. One could argue that it’s not charter schools that are the problem, but rather their regulation. In terms of regulation, Michigan has less oversight than any other state. For example, twenty-one states have a charter cap, 31 require charters to submit annual reports, and 33 have statewide governing bodies. Michigan has none of the above, and also has the highest percentage of for-profit schools in the nation at 80%. In contrast, only 16% of charter schools nationwide are for profit. However, unless there is a national system of regulation in place, charter school problems and charter school regulatory issues become one in the same problem when they have negative outcomes on schools and communities. Without national regulation and oversight, Michigan is an example of how charter schools can do more harm than good. References Arsen, D., DeLuca, T., Ni, Y., Bates, M. (2015). Which districts get into financial trouble and why: Michigan’s story. Education Policy Center, Michigan State University. Accessed at http://www.education.msu.edu/epc/library/papers/documents/WP51-Which-Districts-Get-Into-Financial-Trouble-Arsen.pdf Binelli, M. (2017). Michigan gambled on charter schools; its children lost. The New York Times. Accessed from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/magazine/michigan-gambled-on-charter-schools-its-children-lost.html Charter School Performance in Michigan (2013). Stanford University Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. Accessed from https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/MIreport2012FINAL1112013nowatermark.pdf Jackson, J. (2017). NCAAP task force on quality education hearing report. Accessed from http://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/ Miron, C. and Nelson, D. (2015). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin; SAGE Publications Strauss, V. (2015). Michigan charter schools have harmed public schools, research finds. The Washington Post. Accessed from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Amanda, Your post shed light on the education system of a state that spent a lot of time in the spotlight during the presidential election season. Being that our current Secretary of Education comes from your state, I wonder if her stance on being pro for-profit charter and Michigan's heavy support of pro-for-profit charter schools is in response to the state's economic crises in recent times. From an outsider's perspective, it seems as if the for-profit charter v. public charter v. traditional public school debate is a little more complicated than it is in other states. Nationally over the last decade, we have seen news stories from Detroit, Michigan, in which they talk about the financial devastation that is pervasive; in that Detroit is the largest municipality to face bankruptcy due in large part to the decline in the automotive industry. The population of Detroit went from being 1.8 million to a little over 600,000 in recent years (Clark, 2016). It is difficult to imagine how any school system, be it traditional public school, public charter school, or a for-profit charter school network can survive in such bleak economic times with a what is probably a transient student demographic. Secondly, we have read stories about the Flint water crisis, which to most people in America seems unfathomable in this day in age, where to save money and switch the water source in Flint from Lake Huron to the Flint River led to extreme levels of lead-contaminated water exposure of Flint citizens (Kennedy, 2016). Further, we saw the current president campaign in Michigan and win the votes of blue-collar and rural area workers that were compelled by his promises to bring jobs back to the people in the state of Michigan, by taking the automotive industry to task about creating more jobs in America as opposed to overseas (Dolan, 2016). Have you considered the economic and political factors that contribute to what you describe as a failing school system in the state of Michigan? Did members of the Michigan legislature or local political officials attempt to fix their economic woes in the state by unloading the cost of public education to for-profit charter schools to remain or reestablish financial security? As more investments pour into Detroit and other Michigan cities to revive these areas, along with the state looking to improve the overall economy, do you expect to see any changes within the education sector for for-profit charters, public charters, and traditional public schools? Will they consider more regulations for all schools? Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Our state government appears to completely disregard the elements that contribute to "failing schools;" continuing to define "failing" solely on state assessments and furthermore cutting funding for "failing" schools. Our state has a longstanding history of solely looking at education through an economic worldview. There is a new move that is further undermining public education, and that is that the state just passed a law that to be admitted to a college of education, you have to have a certain -separate, not composite- SAT math and reading score. There is no substitute test, and if you don't have the score, there's no way around it. Teachers whose certificates have lapsed have to take the test, too! We have a teacher in our building whose certificate lapsed and who is facing not being able to renew it because as an English teacher, she can't get the required math score. In Michigan, you don't need a teaching certificate to teach at a charter school because there is so little oversight. Making licensure more difficult for teachers in the public sector could push teachers into the for-profit sector, further reducing the quality of public education. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
1
point
Athorpe, I wanted to respond directly to your use of Michigan as an synecdoche metaphor demonstrating why on balance charter do more harm. Michigan is such an interesting state, particularly in how the state approached charter schools as a solution as a remedy for the public school system. I am going to dispute your claims by 1) Setting the context; 2) Arguing against the use of Michigan as a broader example of why charter schools do more harm (particularly in urban settings); and 3) Articulating some issues with the regulatory framework you presented at the end of your argument. First, on the context, the Michigan charter school expansion, as you noted began in 1994. The Soviet Union had just collapsed and there was a fervor around capitalism and the power of free market ideology bleeding into the national sphere. When Engler was elected governor of your state in 1990, he was a prototype of conservative militant beliefs of how the free-market could change education in Michigan. Despite his calls for a renaissance in public education through his unfettered charter school reform efforts, one proposal that he did present with his agenda for how charter schools would reform the state, was the shift from a property tax base of funding, to a per pupil funding mechanism (where funding would come from state taxes). This was an important step in providing a template for urban communities across the nation to help with socio-economic desegregation in schools and was part and parcel of a major movement that has had important and positive effects across the nation's urban communities. Second A 2016 review commissioned by the National Education Policy Center found that Michigan’s per-pupil spending, compared with that of neighboring Midwestern states, had fallen “from the middle of the pack to near the bottom". The problem with the policy was not the shift to per pupil funding mechanisms, bur rather his lack of foresight in ensuring there was legislative support to ensure that funding levels would be consistent over time....this speaks to the broader problem of not establishing a clear and consistent regulatory framework for charter schools, but I will get to that later in my third point. The problem must be understood within the state of historicism, because the implementation of charter policies are variable from state to state, and Michigan's implementation was fueled by poor accountability standards, regulatory frameworks, and poor legislative support -- all of which do not discount the net positive of the shift to charter school reforms across the country in urban communities, e.g see the 2015 CREDO study which demonstrated the charter school effect in urban communities on balance has provided more positive benefits in terms of student achievement, closing the achievement gap, and social justice pieces around equity and access. Third, on your argument for around regulation, a 2015 working paper by the Education Policy Center determined that Michigan’s school-choice policies “powerfully exacerbate the financial pressures of declining-enrollment districts” — and districts with high levels of charter-school penetration, the authors found, have fared worst of all. Today, all but seven states have some version of a charter law, though few have adopted a model as extreme as Michigan’s. The lack of regulatory framework has been one of the largest issues in Michigan, which makes the charter climate within the state quite unique when comparing harm across the entire charter sector. To turn your arguments, about regulation specific to Michigan (again demonstrating why it is not an appropriate synecdoche metaphor for over charter harm), there is no charter cap (regulatory failure of the state), limited accountability as "31 require charters to submit annual reports and 33 have statewide authorizing bodies". Further, Michigan, abiding by none of those rules, has allowed 80 percent of its own charters to be operated by for-profit E.M.Os, while only 16 percent of charters nationwide are run by for-profit companies. I look forward to engaging you on these arguments. Thanks Jon Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
1
point
Amanda, Thanks for providing so much detailed information about the charter school movement in Michigan. I think that it is absolutely ridiculous that there isn't any accountability for the charter schools in Michigan. I remember this being a big discuss prior to Betsy Devos becoming the Secretary of Education. Is it true that she helped to organize the regulations for the charter schools in Michigan? Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
Disclosure: I work at a charter school in Baltimore and I love my job. A debate about whether charter schools do more or less harm does not address the root of America's dysfunctional approach to educating learners. Charter school, or TPS--neither departs radically from the iconic grammar of schooling (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). Charter schools are not likely to generate improvement or damage at a fundamental or transformational level. This is not to say that the debate does not matter. Threshing out the relationship between schools, governmental agencies at different levels, families, and the private sector may help clarify different stakeholders' roles in defining education in America. However, the existence of charter schools will ultimately do more harm than good. There is some evidence that students perform better at math and reading in urban charter schools, including Black, Hispanic, and ELL learners (Stanford University, 2015). Others found a non-significant negative difference for charter school compared to TPS students; however, within this average, low-socio-economic students performed significantly higher at charter schools and higher socio-economic students performed significantly lower (Clark, Gleason, Tuttle, & Silverberg, 2015). Others have indicated that in districts with charter schools, students at TPS schools often perform better (Gill, 2016). This evidence does indicate that on a surface level, charter schools have a neutral or even positive effect on children. However, on the level of paradigm, charter schools are likely to dismantle our expectation that education be universal. First, the focus on charter schools distracts us from addressing more salient educational issues. I do not know what we need to do to implement consistently excellent schools that serve Americans equitably. But whatever we need, it will not be found in either charter schools or the current manifestation of TPS. The debate about charter schools distracts educators from debates about the revolution that our educational theater so badly needs. Further, even where charter schools foster academic gains, their existence threatens the unspoken democratic expectation:universal education. One could argue that charters provide education and that between TPS and charters, education is indeed universal. However, a shift in American's understanding of who/which entity is responsible for education is likely to weaken a belief that equitable schooling is an unspoken right that will be provided (if indirectly) by our government. Yes, we know that our country has never mastered the ideal of equitable schooling; inequities persist. But charters won't get us closer to that ideal. Charters remain a distraction from a need to rethink funding, teacher training, and school organization on a national level. Over decades, the small cracks between charters and TPS will widen. Americans' access to education will become increasingly inconsistent as educational providers lose sight of the democratic assumption that all children should go to school. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Shannon - Thank you for sharing your perspective. I worked at charter schools for five years before working for the public schools. I felt a great deal of cognitive dissonance between loving my job and my kids and not supporting the charter school philosophically. Do you feel this as well? How does it look for you personally? Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Hi, Deanna. I do remember that you once worked at a charter school. Sometimes, I have been torn between liking the work that I do and concerns with charter schools. I do see charter schools as less of a problem in the short term than the policies of larger organizational systems. Conflict between charters and TPS may detract from larger concerns, especially underfunding of all schools. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
2
points
The problem that exists with charter schools isn't that they exist, it is that they are often viewed as a panacea for problems infecting education. When one way is seen as "the right way" due to some inflated numbers, poor policy can come as a result. Additionally, private charter schools do not help students so much as make money for the private companies running them. Finally, one must only look at Success Academy in New York to find violations in charter schools due to the increased focus on testing these schools have. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
1
point
Jesse, Let's examine your arguments. 1)I agree with your point that the problem is not that they exist, but that they are often viewed as a panacea for problems affecting education. However, there is actually a question of policy framing and deployment, but is not an argument against their harm. Policy perception and characterization will always be an issue in education, but it is not unique...as it could be said the common core, standardized assessments, Title I funding mechanisms, etc. Any type we apply silver bullet thinking to a complex education problem, we have similar results. This does not prove that on balance, charters do more harm. 2)Private charter make up about 16 percent of the charter landscape, and even less than that when looking at urban centers (CREDO, 2015). Michigan is an example where 80% are private, for profit charters and that has been disatrous, but it does not discount results from high performing charters that have been examined in urban center and the statistically significant effect they have had on improving achievement numbers (Winters, 2013). 3) You use of Success Academy actually demonstrates that charters do more positive for student academic outcomes and closing the achievement gap. The notion that there is an increased focus on testing that is comparative to other schools (charter or TPS) is not grounded in empircal study. Do you have evidence of this claim? If not it is not an appropriate synechdoche for charter schools on balance in urban centers. Another study is out showing New York City charters outperforming the regular public schools. The study, by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, used test scores to compare the gains of 75,000 third- through eighth-graders in 197 city charters to those of their traditional-school peers between 2011-12 and 2015-16. t found an average charter kid displays growth in reading “equivalent” to 23 extra school days; for math, it’s 63 extra days. Every. Single. Year (CREDO, 2016). Further (regardless of how we feel about Success Academy Politics), for the 2015-2016 school year there schools were top 1% in math, top 2% in ELA, and top 5% in Science across the entire state. I a number of feelings about success, but after visiting 15 of their schools across ES and MS, my feelings have changed. I have seen happy children, happy educators, and frankly, really amazing instruction in communities that have traditionally been underserved across the city. I look forward to engaging you in your arguments. Peace and Justice, Jon Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
My wife has taught in two large inner city public schools, one of which was a magnate (or pilot) which is the public school parallel to charter. Here's the deal, some (not all) magnate/charter schools make great waves and are worth it, at least in the beginning. But that's the happy exception because many others fail or simply are not special. Meanwhile, they use their unique mission to justify paying peanuts, making teachers ridiculously overextend (my wife was pushed toward having three full teaching licenses mainly because they would not staff properly) and once successful they usually pack on the kids. Her (former) magnate school was visited by a President to hype it's importance but 3 or 4 years later had exploded in size and struggling to not bottom out in scores. Then they started shedding their most qualified teachers to save money even though the reason they were expensive was they'd piled massive loads on triple qualified teachers per their own policies. That's when she changed schools. My point is this. Charters/magnates can be great. But it's foolish to think they all are, and it's even more foolish to think the answer is to enslave the nation's best teachers into impossible jobs paying much less than the non charter schools. If you have any respect for the hard work and sacrifice good teachers put into their jobs then stop stealing funding for public schools and putting it instead toward teacher sweatshops based on some sort of gimmick philosophy and in many instances lining the pocket of whomever sold the idea. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
As has been mentioned many times in this discussion, it is important to look at the differences between charter schools. As a Baltimore teacher of a public charter, I make the same money as a traditional teacher with the same qualifications and am a member of the union. Maryland charter schools are aggressively regulated. Also, many, if not most, charters are not for-profit. I do feel as if I work in a teacher sweat shop with a job description that asks me to absorb too much stress and emotional pain from the students and parents that I serve. However, this part of my job is not related to our being a charter; I imagine traditional school teachers absorb the same types of stress and pain. We absorb what is out there in a system that is not equitable at any level. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
I agree that is foolish to think that charter schools are the answer, especially given some of the scandals that have occurred. The existence of charter schools leads to potential conflicts between the government and schools such as this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
It is difficult to make generalizations about charter schools because there is so much variation between different cities and different charter school networks. While the charter school movement has provided an opportunity for experimentation in improving education, the experiment has run its course and charter schools reduce community involvement and have not been shown to outperform traditional public schools in academic achievement. In my five years of experience as a charter school teacher in Philadelphia and Washington, DC, I saw the positives impacts of charter schools: recruiting motivated new teachers and creating opportunities for autonomy and ingenuity in the classroom. However, I also witnessed the negatives, burning out teachers with long hours and a lack of union protections, disconnection from the local community, and a lack of transparency to the public. As a charter school teacher, I was required to work several hours per day longer than my traditional public school counterparts, and the extra hours were spent in front of students rather than extra planning time. Teachers were signed to one year contracts, which created a lack of stability based on achievement scores and the whim of an administrator. Students attended the school from all over the city, meaning that the schools had few ties with the neighborhoods in which they were based, and many students commuted over an hour each way. While I have been involved in urban public schools, I have learned about several scandals in which charter school networks have been shut down for stealing public money and resources. It is also more difficult for the public to access achievement data and to provide feedback on how schools are run. While there is mixed evidence about the impact of charter schools on student achievement (Clark et al., 2015), there are aspects of charter schools that make them particularly difficult to compare to traditional public schools. In many cases, such as the lottery based charters we have in DC, parental involvement is required to enter and enroll, creating a gap in which charter schools recruit students with a lot of parental involvement while traditional public schools serve students with less parental involvement, which could impact academic achievement. Across the country, results from the National Association of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015 math and reading grade 8 assessments, show no statistical difference in achievement between charter school students and non-charter public school students (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). To improve education across the United States, we need to invest in public education that works for all students, rather than creating more divisions between them. The profit motive and variability between charter schools prevent charter schools from being the long-term solution to improving education. References Clark, M. A., Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., & Silverberg, M. K. (2015). Do charter schools improve student achievement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714558292 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2015 Mathematics and Reading Assessment. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
I agree that it is hard to say one way or the other because there are so many different charter models. Overall, however, the body of data that I was able to find shows modest, if any, increase in student success in charter schools versus public schools. When those positive results are negligible, it is important to ask if their cost - the damage charters can cause to public schools - is worth the gain, or if those students would have been served just as good -or better - if their local public school had the resources it needed in order to be quality enough that there would be no draw to leave it for a charter in the first place. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
I agree with your question about whether charter schools are worth the potential benefits when balanced with their negative impacts on local public schools, from my experiences in Washington, DC. The opportunity cost of charter schools is not worth the cost. Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Charter schools were created to outperform public schools(Intelligence2dbates) but to date, they have not been able outperform traditional public schools in terms of standardized testing but results have been on par with traditional public schools (Gill, 2016). The main concern for the charter school movement is that private and non-profit organizations are managements and benefiting financially from students who enroll in their schools. This phenomenon results in traditional public schools losing money and interest due to the perceived novelty of the charter school movement. Although I am not completely against the concept of charters, I do believe that they are inherently "good" at their core and have students' best interests in their formation. However, using public dollars to educate students, while these public dollars are used to fatten the wallets of companies is not just. Privatization and public education should not be a formula to increase student achievement. Gill, B. (2016, November 2). The effects of charter schools on students in traditional public schools: A review of the evidence. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/ Intelligence2 Debates. (n.d.) Charter schools are overrated. Retrieved from http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Felicia, I agree with your latter statement that the merging of privatization and public education raises ethical eyebrows (in turn, of who and what is truly funded), I would like to ask for clarification on another point you made. You state that the novelty of the charter school movement is to blame for traditional public school losing money and interest. What do you mean by interest? And is the novelty of the charter school movement the only reason traditional schools are being compared to charter schools (and losing funding)? What is the significant factor uniting the two? Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
The school choice movement, (in particular charter school expansion and impact) is a point of tension for many within my state (Florida) at the moment. This summer, Gov. Rick Scott, signed H.B. 7069, against much statewide opposition. The bill, a massive 274-page document, was crafted in private and not released or even mentioned to the public until the last three days of an already extended legislative session (Think Progress, 2017). While the bill is not solely focused on charter schools, the majority of it is. The bill (which passed by one senate vote only), will allow for allocated school construction funds to be shared between public schools and charter schools. Additionally, the bill includes $140 million provision to expand charter schools into low-income areas, causing neighborhood public schools to have to compete with these charter schools (Think Progress, 2017). Anti-bill support was garnered throughout the state from superintendents, most school boards, educators and many parents. A component of the bill that is highly criticized is the Schools of Hope program. This program would allow for charter schools to be constructed and operating in school zones that received a D or F grade for the past three consecutive years (Miami Herald, 2017). Why not allocate these funds or a design a similar program to better understand what is and is not taking place at these lower performing schools? Not much thought or research has gone into reviewing why these lower performing schools are not performing at the desired levels. Throwing charter schools in these areas is not the answer to this problem. Furthermore, K-12 education is not a series of activities created and refined within classroom settings only. Many advocates of the bill, are overlooking the sociocultural factors and limited human and financial resources needed to effectively impact academic achievement and school-wide success (as measured by statewide metrics). Likewise, particularly within Florida, it is extremely difficult to state that charter schools fare better than public schools when it comes to academic outcomes and success. There are no standardized metrics within the state to assess charter school performance and outcomes vary across the state with charter schools performing worse than state public schools (Think Progress, 2017). In this case, there is not sufficient evidence to support the expansion of charter schools within the state. While some students were even granted extra credit to write letters in support of the bill to Gov. Scott (this is a true story), where is the desire for students and families opinions to be heard in how to better their public schools? Why would we invest millions of dollars into a model that has no consistent proven track record within the state? Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau(2017, June 15).Governor signs controversial schools bill into law. Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article156299239.html K. Marmon (2017, June 22).Florida just passed a controversial new education bill: Like high school, it’s been dramatic. Retrieved from https://thinkprogress.org/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
I tend to lean toward this side of the argument primarily because charter schools tend to serve a single racial or ethnic group and the achievement data does not support the fact that charters out-perform public schools in reading and mathematics. According to a 2016 study of those students that attended charter schools in Chicago from 2012-2014 it was determined that charter school students underperformed their traditional counterparts in most measureable ways. Reading and math pass rates, growth rates, graduation rates, and ACT scores were lower for charter school students. Additionally, the gap between charter and traditionals widened in the second year for most of the measures. Now, this is one study so it’s important to keep that in mind, but for a system as large as Chicago’s, it does carry some weight. In reality, the findings from an extensive and growing research literature show decidedly mixed results on the issue of student achievement. This is true for individual city or state studies including those on Chicago charters as well as multi-state studies. One recent review of the literature concluded that “{t}aken in the aggregate, the empirical evidence to date leads one to conclude that we do not have definitive knowledge about the impacts of public charter schools on students and existing schools.” (Silvernail & Johnson, 2014). The reason largely is due to selection bias. Typically, parents who choose a charter and enroll their child are signing on for or promising participation in their child’s education. With this as the case we should expect student achievement to be higher in charter schools. However, in the case of Chicago’s charter system where students are accepted as long as space is available and not self- selected, the outcome has been lower student achievement. Orfield, M., & Luce, T. (2016). An analysis of student performance in Chicago’s charter schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(111). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2203 Silvernail, D., & Johnson, A. (2014). The Impacts of Public Charter Schools on Students and Traditional Public Schools: What Does the Empirical Evidence Tell Us? Maine Education Policy Research Institute, University of Southern Maine. Retrieved from https://usm.maine.edu/sites/default/ Side: Charter Schools Do More Harm
Allie, You open your argument by stating that charter schools tend to serve single racial or ethnic group. The trend of single-raced schools is pervasive across the United States in both the traditional public school and public charter school sectors. ProPublica (2014) found that in 1972, 25% of black students attended segregated schools where the minority representation was over 90%. For school districts that were under federal government oversight between the years of 1990-2011, more than half of those schools are considered segregated and serve over 90% minority populations (ProPublica, 2014). The resegregation of schools is way more complex and is observable in all education sectors. Secondly, I find the research around ACT scores being lower for charters in Chicago when compared to traditional public schools quite interesting. Noble Street Charter posted the highest ACT scores of an open-enrollment school in the year 2012 (the state now uses the SAT exam) (Illinois Policy, n.d.). The traditional public schools that have higher ACT scores than Noble Street Charter (Noble educates 10% of the high school aged students in Chicago) are selective enrollment magnet schools. There are very few other high school charter operatives and none that hold as much of the high school student population (Heller & Davis, 2017; Illinois Policy, n.d.). Chicago Public Schools also closes under-performing charter and traditional public schools annually. Charters are rated using the same accountability system and face the same sanctions as other schools in the traditional public school district if they are low performing. I am a Chicago Public School graduate, former teacher, and administrator and I spent years in my career being anti-charter until I realized that educating children in Chicago is a challenge and it takes all types of schools to support the dynamic needs of the students in that city. I have lost students to charters, and I have taken in students who left charter schools because we had more comprehensive offerings and an International Baccalaureate Program. As an administrator, it taught me not to take students and parents for granted. My old high school was once was a neighborhood school that did not have to compete with the surrounding low performing high schools for students. My high school was the school of choice in the neighborhood. When charter schools entered the market, it provided more options for students who may not have had the test scores to attend a magnet or selective enrollment school and felt that our high school was there the only option regardless if it was the best fit. Further, both Noble Street and Urban Prep pushed many city high schools (not the selective enrollment schools) to improve our college counseling efforts because each year we heard more and more stories about how students high ACT scores and college counseling and some of the big name charters was gaining their students' admission to college. Just food for thought. The Chicago charter school landscape is murky. However, some charters like Noble Street have seen a great deal of success on many of their campuses within the network. Side: Charter Schools Do More Good
|
