I definitely understand your supposition. I think the fault in the logic comes from the nuance of distributive economics. The barrier for the pooerest 2% of families to go to college is not tuition, as there are already currently subsides that provide tuition at no cost for this demographic. The barrier typically is more focused on the lack of living subsidies (post tuition) that makes it possible to attend college. I agree that it important to change the socioeconomic landscape for these individuals, but as longitudinal research from Dr. Berliner (2015), demonstrates that improving education and access is important, but the key to changing conditions for the poorest 2% is not education (as it is already available for free in our current system) it is the lack of a living wage for families and a number of material conditions that limit their ability to close this gap.

Felicia,

Thank you for your comments. However i think that the premise of providing free higher education does not solve the issue that you are wanting to solve (from a policy perspective). First, you note that regardless of income, all individuals should be able to have the opportunity to attend college for free. This is a misnomer, when considering your analogous reasoning comparing the tax code, and the differing levels of choice afforded to those that choose private versus public institutions. This is incorrect because it makes a fallacy of analogous thinking. The assumption that individuals within a low SES bracket and those at the upper ends have the same "opportunity" to attend college is false, as if funds, living subsides, family obligations, etc. are all part of limiting obligations, than a shift to free higher education would be a distributive system that would shift the ability to provide more opportunities to individuals with lower SES. This creates even more inequality and disparity through classism.

Be well

Jon

Thank you for your arguments Khaliah. I wanted to respond to the major ones, for your consideration.

1 Many individuals in the US, many have been denied a quality education whether directly or indirectly through institutionalized racism, socioeconomic status or other forms of covert or overt forms classism.

I think that you are right that there are two different issues highlighted as problematic within our current education system (access and opportunity).

In terms of access, providing free higher education will probably not do much to solve issues of institutional racism, or classism. Primarily, because if we consider the current landscape of higher education, individuals that disadvantaged populations currently have a number of governmental subsidies, grants, etc. that further limit the impact of attendance to college. A change to free public education for all would shift the ability to receive college going benefits to more advantaged students, as they currently already have both access and opportunity (Republic, 2017). This would exacerbate the gap even further to individuals that experience institutional racism, etc.

Second, in terms of opportunity - this is often a function of a system that precedes higher education. The current K-12 system is woefully perpetuating an opportunity gap that is a precondition to getting into the best public institutions. The type of competitiveness in a system where higher education would be free, would create even more "opportunities" for free education for groups of individuals that have better opportunity for education in higher income areas. This would limit opportunities and shift funding away from K-12 equity initiatives, particularly in a world where the right to an education K-12 is not even a protected constitutional right (e.g see the Rodriguez Supreme court decision).

Secondly, research has shown that he income gap continues to expand between high school diploma holders and those with college degrees. Additionally the student loan debt.

Providing free higher education would not shrink the income gap, it would rather normalize education that is required, whereas it would also create a reverse incentive to limit more opportunity, as we are not then focusing on ensuring the quality of k-12 educational systems.

Further, in terms of the student loan crisis. Free college tuition will do little to help a single mom leave her job to go to college full time, or will it help individuals with family obligations to leave their family bills to go to college. The free college education for all plan, does not provide latitude for living subsidies that are critical to ensure that disadvantaged populations have equality opportunity and access.

My counter policy proposal, would be to provide free public education for individuals that do not meet much higher income thresholds, such as the move in NYS to allow all families that have a combined income less that 100,000 the opportunity to for free education. Tiered programs like these allow there to be mediated restraint, while also ensuring that living subsidies, etc to still be possible.

No, higher education should not be free in the United States. Because college education and the institutions of higher learning are not where we should be putting our reform efforts as a society, because of the massive inequality, access and opportunity issues, and segregation that effects K-12 education. Free higher education, in principle, is a great idea, however in practice, because of the current level of inequality, it does not translate to the type of "ideal" that is implied by the call for education. Without a fundamental change in what we understand as student benefits, making higher education free would most likely boost attendees with securing the normative gains, implicit in calls for free higher education.

The primary issue with free higher education is that currently, a majority of students originate from well-off backgrounds and are already reaping the benefits of these futures, which make them un-compelling targets for transfers to public "education" free higher education settings. For example, a recent study by the college board (2016) found that around 20% of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent, the same number is around 90%. The poorer students that attend college, primarily attend two-year community colleges and less selective four-year institutions. Examining four year and two-year colleges, the poorest four already pay no tuition and receive annual living subsidies.

Class-based segregation in attendance, institutional selection, and current student benefit levels would, therefore, most certainly cause more of the generous student benefits to skew in a"free higher education" landscape to richer families than poorer ones. Red herrings around student debt crises, confuse the real question about the overall benefit might be, over time, particularly when redistribution economics would actually favor the more well off, in a system of "free college education". I am not discounting that there are real issues with student debt, that often come from the for-profit scheming that exits in the current landscape, but that is a different debate for a different time.

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

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

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.