Charter schools in Boston are “significantly outperforming” both traditional public schools and the city’s “pilot schools,” according to new data from researchers at Harvard and MIT. The study, conducted for the Boston Foundation, examined state standardized test scores for students of similar backgrounds over a four-year period at three kinds of schools — charters, public schools and so-called pilot schools, which embrace innovative practices like charters, but are still within the public school system. “The findings could present a setback for Governor Deval Patrick’s education overhaul,” the Boston Globe notes, ”which seeks to emulate pilot schools around the state while resisting calls for more charter schools.” But here’s the real grabber:
The study stands apart from volumes of other research produced over the more than decadelong debate over charter schools by including a section that compared the performance of students at the charter and pilot schools to students who entered the lottery to attend those schools but did not get in. This was an attempt to dispel the perception that charter schools perform well in comparative studies because they generally attract more academically-motivated students and parents – not necessarily because they have better teaching methods.
Paging Jennifer Jennings! Last month, Eduwonkette foresaw a new round of “Charter Wars” over data. “The only defensible approach here is to compare students who entered the charter lottery and won with those who entered the lottery and lost,” she wrote. Case closed? Like Jennings, I’ve long believed that charters benefit from a selection advantage (and I have no problem with that whatsoever), attracting students from more motivated families, regardless of their achievement level. This study appears to indicate that even when you account for that selection bias, charters still outperform other kinds of schools.
Nelson Smith, head of the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools, used the data to call on Governor Deval Patrick and Massachusetts legislators, “in the strongest possible terms, to lift the caps on public charter schools this coming legislative session.”
Update: Eduwonkette answers the Batphone. She sees ”enough positive evidence here to support the creation of more charter schools in Boston,” but with two caveats.
“…the real reason charter students do better is that they have motivated parents who care more about their education.” So the obvious question begging to be answered: Why is Governor Patrick so reluctant to lift the cap on this proven entity to improve the life chances of inner-city youngsters? It’s as transparent as the nose on his face. The Massachusetts Teachers Association financed his 2006 campaign and he will be forever beholding to them. Does he really believe no one can see this?
Thanks Governor for depriving so many of these kids the same chance you had growing up as a minority student.
Also worth mentioning, charter schools are public schools, financed by public tax dollars. If there is a demand by the public for more of these schools shouldn’t the public consumer be entitled to purchase what they want for their children?
Stop being a hypocrite on this Governor. LIFT THE CAP ON INNER CITY CHARTERS. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan both favor these choices for poor/minority youngsters. Why won’t you?
Comment by Paul Hoss — January 7, 2009 @ 10:39 am
1. 2 of 16 Boston charters have been shut down. Another just got recommended for closure. The state charter association supports this.
Yesterday, a pilot school leader said “Maybe we should close persistently weak pilot schools, too.”
Seems like that could become a positive.
2. The public debate here becomes charter versus pilot. (Discl: I work for a charter and am on the board of a pilot).
But while the authors did not release the disaggregated, school by school data, I think from their public MCAS results we can have some idea of even examining charter versus charter: why do some generate big learning gains, and others not?
And I suspect the correlation is almost entirely around whether the schools teachers and leaders perceive themselves as a so-called “No Excuses” school.
3. Case closed broadly? No. One geography, a few schools.
Slam dunk about these few schools? The authors themselves pointed to some empirical remaining questions.
And I think reasonable folks everywhere could agree that tracking the long-term college graduation rate is a more important indicator than test scores (also giving a “fair” chance to those schools which claim their test scores are low but their critical thinking stuff is high).
But I wish Bigger/Bolder folks didn’t have the starting point of “How do I find all the possible explanations which will show these charters, in fact, do NOT help kids, and therefore shouldn’t be replicated?”
I realize that some Bigger/Bolder opponents use the very existence of the 100 to 200 successful No Excuses schools nationally to argue against the Bigger/Bolder agenda.
But why can’t Bigger/Bolder simply take that hit, embrace replication of those charter schools which seem to generate big gains for kids in empirically sound studies, and still push pre-K and health care investments?
Why not allow people who don’t claim to know anything more than how to build small lifeboats to build a few more?
Comment by Mike G — January 7, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Hate to step into the middle of a manufactured argument here–do we always, always have to frame arguments in education employing the concept of “versus?”–but could we stop trying to find a villain and putting people in camps (the unions? the Bigger/Bolder crowd, whoever they are?) and return to the central question: are charter schools better?
The answer, of course, is yes and no. Some times, some places, some charter models are exactly what kids need–or at least a significantly better option. Sometimes, this charter adulation is built on some pretty shaky principles.
Why are we trying to sort schools by governance model/ fiscal agency anyway, since these are only one factor in determining school effectiveness? There are great charter schools and there are crappy charter schools, just as there are great public schools and failing public schools. I applaud (standing on my chair) work like Eduwonkette’s investigating selection bias in charters’ student pools–this gives us some basis for evaluating decision-making around most effective practice. But let’s not turn this into a Charters Win!! Nyah Nyah!! moment.
I live and work in Michigan, which had charter school legislation early on, and where some of the first reliable research on the effectiveness of charter schools was done. I strongly support the charter schools movement, although there are not many charter schools that genuinely reach for their highest potential, breaking the school-as-usual mold. And it’s probably redundant (or waving a red flag) to point out that legislated charter caps have served a purpose in states like mine where several, ummm, unworthy charter operators were rightfully driven out of business, simply because the number of charters was small enough that the monitoring agencies could fairly evaluate their work. We’re right to look carefully at the work of charter models as they emerge. We’re stuck with public schools–the devil we know–so it’s wise to look carefully at the devil we don’t know, before we’re stuck with ineffective charter models.
Several of my good friends work in charters. All of them would gladly move to a public school if a position opened (MI has virtually zero openings for new teachers)–better hours and better pay. Strange how teachers are capitalists, too–those economic incentives at work. Let’s separate charter school effectiveness–a real issue, when examined school by school–from other biases.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — January 7, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
As a “district school” person, what I’d really like to see more of is discussion of what successful charter schools do differently that causes them to be successful. If the most successful charter schools are the “No Excuses” schools, the lesson may be not only that it should be easier the replicate them, but that district schools should adopt more of their practices.
Comment by Rachel — January 7, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Sorry you see this as a manufactured argument, Nancy. What I find interesting here is that 1) charter opponents have often argued selection bias; 2) Eduwonkette last month made the point that we need an apples to apples study to determine charter effectiveness; and 3) the Boston study appears to be exactly that, apples to apples. I defer to the redoubtable Ms. Jennings on all things ed research, so I not unnaturally invoked her name, and I deeply appreciate her taking the time to weigh in. I trust her judgement. So for me at least, this is not a “nyah nyah, charters win” moment. (I’m certainly a fan of charters, but I have no skin in the game) Rather it has more to do with what Rachel suggested. We can’t begin a discussion of what makes charters more successful in the absence of research that seems to suggest they ARE more successful. The Boston research thus holds out the possibility that something is happening in Beantown that deserves our attention, and perhaps replication. I’d like to know what it is.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — January 7, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
We all defer to Eduwonkette, with good reason–and my comments were mainly directed your early commenters, who would use the referenced (important) research as a springboard to taking on the Broader/Bolder coalition, teachers’ associations and the governor of Massachusetts. Rachel said it best: let’s critique charter schools’ results with the goal of replicating what works in all schools. That’s what matters. It’s about continuous improvement for all schools, no matter how they’re funded or governed.
I taught in a public school, sent one child to public and another to a competitive-admissions all-girls Catholic school. And I sit as informal advisor on the board of a charter school in an urban wasteland. I have seen, up close and personal, the strengths and weaknesses of all three. All three are necessary components, IMHO, of an equitable system in a democracy.
And will somebody explain to me what “no excuses” means? Is is some kind of shorthand? Or a veiled slur?
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — January 7, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Nancy: I always enjoy reading your comments. You bring an informed perspective to the table. My take on charter schools is that they self-select for more motivated children and families. As such, they are more liklely to have the ability to be “no excuses” schools: They can hold students to higher standards of conduct, attendance and work ethic. They can take “no excuses” for deviations from the expected behavior and homework rules. If the students aren’t willing to stick to the program, they can be asked to leave (and return to public schools).
It would be my guess that charter schools students would be less likely to disrupt the classroom, more likely to do their homework, and more likely to have parents who are involved in their education. From my experience teaching in both public and private schools (and classes ranging from honors to special education), most students learn better if they are in classes with other well-behaved students who are on-task. Teachers can focus on teaching, and spend less time dealing with behavior problems. The question is: How can we replicate this environment in the public schools – and would we want to?
Comment by Attorney DC — January 7, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Interesting nuance, ADC, and I suspect you’re correct. You can be a no excuses school when the student is motivated and the family backs up the school. It brings the ideal of mutual accountability closer to reality. I have long been curious about how heavily the threat of being “counseled out” weighs in gaining student compliance. I know KIPP advocates who say the school’s low expulsion rate is proof that it has no bearing, but I’m not persuaded. It could indicate the effectiveness of the policy: if you know they’re serious about expelling you, you’re less likely to tempt fate.
One of my ironclad articles of faith is that a first-rate academic environment (read: engaged, non-disruptive) is a pre-condition of first-rate academic performance. Thus, like you, I assume the classroom environment borne of self-selection, and regulated by the ability to counsel out or expel of students who are not down with the program is a huge factor in charter success. In short, charters spend more time teaching and less time selling.
Now there are those who will look at that and say “you can’t replicate those conditions in public schools.” I completely agree. And that’s why I think charters are essential.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — January 7, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Sigh. I’m not being belligerent or disingenuous here, re: “no excuses schools.” It’s a term I’ve seen all over edblog world, and it carries a number of implications and assumptions:
What kinds of excuse-making is not accepted? Are we talking zero tolerance for behavioral infractions? That’s a different mission than booting kids who consistently fail to do their work. What is the impact of a “no excuses” policy on the homeless or sketchily parented child who has to get himself to third grade? And why do you believe that high expectations and tough standards can’t take root in public schools? What is there about public funding or public school policy that makes it impossible to run a tight ship, both academically and behaviorally –if that’s what “no excuses” means?
What is the opposite of a “no excuses” school–public, charter or otherwise?
What happens to children who are expelled when we don’t allow second chances? Where do the kids who are not “down with the program” go–and what impact does an increasing number of them have on society? Should we care about all of this?
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — January 7, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
“No excuses,” I imagine, means many things to many people. It’s most typically associated with the muscular accountability that holds that every deficit in a child’s life can be overcome in the right school and classroom. Personally I think that’s a fine ideal, but I’m not sure it’s a sound policy or realistic expectation. But maybe my high expectations are higher than others. I’ll let others, especially those who work in charters define it for their particular institutions.
I’m not suggesting it’s impossible for high expectations and tough standards to exist in a public school. But I am suggesting it’s very hard for them to exist in the absence of shared buy-in, of mutual accountability. If the student doesn’t see his or her education as a means to any valuable end, if there is no consequence — or concern for future consequence, lack of opportunity, etc. — then it’s hard for high expectations to be anything other than another empty slogan. Both teacher and learner have to see value in education for it to be a meaningful enterprise. That’s inherent the charter school formula, I believe. Education is compulsory; charter education is not. That means someone voted with their feet and said, “I want this. I value this. I raised my hand and asked for it.” And I personally believe they should have the opportunity to seek out and pursue the best possible outcome. Motivation makes a difference. Sadly, that is not always the case in public schools. And while I think talented educators can certainly be difference makers in motivating the recalcitrant student, it is simply too much to expect that to happen in every single instance, without fail.
And of course we should be concerned with the children who are not “down with the program,” Nancy. But the ones who haunt me at night are not the ones I failed to win over. It’s the ones who walked in sold but were underserved. Struggling schools are filled with the children of families who buy what we sell, who sit at their desks, cheerful, compliant, helpful, while we try to get the unmotivated “down with the program.” Do we label them successful because they pass a dumbed-down state reading test, declare victory and pride ourselves on a job well done? How much talent have we wasted, what accomplishments have we quashed — what future doctors and lawyers did we turn into orderlies and receptionists– by undereducating them? What is the impact of that unrealized potential on society? Do they not deserve the best possible academic environment we can provide? And if we can’t provide it, don’t we have an obligation to let them find it where they may? I can’t in good conscience say no.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — January 7, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
Now there are those who will look at that and say “you can’t replicate those conditions in public schools.” I completely agree. And that’s why I think charters are essential.
But it seems to me the logical extension of this is an educational system tracked by student effort and parental engagement. I think most people would be pretty appalled if a school district said “we have school A for students whose parents commit to 5 hours a month of volunteers service, and who have fewer than 2 unexcused absences a year, and school B for students whose parents can commit to 2 hours a month of volunteer service and who have fewer than 5 unexcused absences in a year, and school C for everyone else.” But if school A and B are charters, it’s somehow okay.
I think part of the reason is that when school districts tracked students — nominally by “ability” but often effectively by student effort and parental engagement — the race and class correlations were clear. But when you look at primarily minority communities it’s easy to lose sight of the fact building life boats for a one group of kids often comes at the expense of the kids who don’t get a place in the life boat, because the race and class distinctions between the kids in the life boats and the kids who are drowning aren’t as obvious.
But in our area — and I suspect many others — there are a lot of charter school that don’t look at all like KIPP. They are predominantly white and middle class (in the one in our neighborhood over half of the parents have graduate degrees). They provide wonderful, supportive environments for their students — usually shielded from any of the unpleasant effects of NCLB — but they also promote de facto segregation.
Comment by Rachel — January 8, 2009 @ 12:31 am
We can’t begin a discussion of what makes charters more successful in the absence of research that seems to suggest they ARE more successful.
On the other hand, why do we focus on one aspect of governance? We could compare schools by size, or by length of school day, or by curricular approach (e.g., Core Knowledge vs. other schools).
I think the Boston results are interesting — and may be highlighting some uncomfortable truths about education. But I think that assuming that the lesson to learn from it is that there should be more charters ignores some of the unintended, and mostly hidden, consequences of creating a public school system with significant capacity for self-segregation.
Comment by Rachel — January 8, 2009 @ 12:42 am
Hey John (Thompson),
Wasn’t it your old pal Al Shanker who first proposed charter schools sometime toward the end of the last century? I’d certainly like to get his take on them now. I’m sure he could fill a “Where We Stand” column or two on the merits/pitfalls of his grand scheme.
I’d also like to hear again from James Coleman on this experiment. I’m sure he’d have a social policy study or two to report on regarding these alternative public schools.
Comment by Paul Hoss — January 8, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
For more information on the evolution of the “no excuses” meme, I’d recommend “No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap In Learning” (Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, 2004). (Some Teach for America inservices assign excerpts to incoming corps members.) The Thernstroms’ book was preceded by “No Excuses: Lessons from 21 High-Performing, High Poverty Schools,” a 2000 report by Samuel Casey for the Heritage Foundation. Casey’s seven habits of highly effective schools follow:
- The principal is free from bureaucratic meddling.
- The school sets measurable goals.
- “Master” teachers assume leadership roles among the faculty.
- Regular testing leads to continuous achievement.
- Student achievement helps maintain discipline.
- The school sets up contracts with parents to “make the home the center of learning.”
- Teachers and students work longer than the traditional school day.
(http://www.amazon.com/No-Excuses-Lessons-High-Performing-High-Poverty/dp/0891950907)
Hope that helps.
Comment by Ms. Miller — January 8, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
Thank you, Rachel, for brilliantly clarifying the principle that one charter school does not represent all charter schools. The K-8 charter in the middle of my (large, semi-rural) district functions as a dumping ground for the disgruntled parents whose kids were recommended for grade retention or special education testing, or couldn’t make it in any of the five public districts in the county. Kids there routinely score 20 points below the public schools. My state also permits conversion charters–where Heritage Christian Academy becomes Heritage Academy overnight, and religious instruction gets moved to the “end” of the school day and becomes voluntary.
RP: Both teacher and learner have to see value in education for it to be a meaningful enterprise. That’s inherent the charter school formula, I believe.
NF: Not always. Further–kids who see no value in education have always been with us, and are a far greater threat to socio-economic stability now than they’ve ever been. Unless someone is willing to take on the challenge of working with disaffected, even hostile, kids, we’re in serious trouble. I’m no Pollyanna–I’ve had my share of kids who could not be reached, despite the efforts of many excellent and caring teachers. But isolating them in dumping-ground public schools–especially early in the school game–or giving up the quest to find ways to (ahem) leave no child behind is morally repugnant.
RP: Motivation makes a difference. Sadly, that is not always the case in public schools.
NF: Motivation is present–and absent–in both charter and public schools. Instead of trying to sort schools into “schools where kids and parents care” and “schools where everyone else goes,” perhaps we should focus our resources on why some kids find school a gigantic waste of time. Charter schools were initially conceived as places where there were no bureaucratic constraints–where unique populations could be well-served, and innovation could flourish. The fact that they have become, as Rachel says, life boats for the kids whose parents are motivated and savvy enough to take advantage of them probably says more about race and class than the success of one schooling model over another.
RP: Do we label them successful because they pass a dumbed-down state reading test, declare victory and pride ourselves on a job well done? How much talent have we wasted, what accomplishments have we quashed — what future doctors and lawyers did we turn into orderlies and receptionists– by undereducating them? Do they not deserve the best possible academic environment we can provide?
NF: As the daughter of a receptionist and a truck driver, I’m wondering who, exactly, is supposed to take these jobs and do them with the pride in honest work that my parents advocated?
As for dumbed-down tests, I can only speak about the statewide assessments in Michigan, which used to be performance assessments (essays, constructed responses in math, science labs) tightly linked to rigorous curriculum benchmarks, but have become much LESS useful multiple-choice tests due to the constraints of NCLB. High school exit exams were scrapped completely (too expensive) in favor of the ACT, which has no links to curriculum benchmarks. So–who’s dumbing who?
Finally, I believe every child, including kids who have no parent support and come to school dirty, unprepared and belligerent deserve the best education we can give them, too. In fact, booting out kids who resist our efforts to teach them represents another kind of excuse making.
Comment by Nancy Flanagan — January 8, 2009 @ 10:26 pm
Some of you are assuming that it’s a “given” that charters “skim the cream” of the population of traditional public schools. In fact, the research has demonstrated the contrary. I wanted to find this connection, but the research clearly shows that charters serve disadvantaged students in all arenas: minority status, poverty, special ed, and, even recently, achievement. A well-designed AZ study showed that students entering a charter (compared to students choosing to remain behind in their old school) had dramatically lower test scores, especially in math. Other studies confirm this. My own professional experience in several schools of both varieties here in Ohio (sub teacher) is that there is a disproportionate number of impulsive, “problem” students in the charters. Some have begun to wonder if there isn’t some “dumping” going on–students in district schools being encouraged to pursue the charters rather than embark on the costly bureaucratic procedure of diagnosing and accommodating a disability–in the interest of saving money and improving test scores. The charters are required to take anyone who applies, unless they are serving a niche, which most don’t. My own theory is that this phenomenon of more problem students in charters is a result of parents simply moving these kids from whatever school they perceive to be “hassling” them via bus or bullying reports, complaints or pressure from teachers, etc. I think parents see charters as an easy alternative to pursuing the problems of their children.
Comment by Elaine — February 14, 2009 @ 2:31 pm