Florida seems to be the happening place for interesting education news this month. First there was the school board member who took and failed the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, and now there is an expose by the Miami Herald about the low numbers of low-income students in South Florida being served by charter schools. In many cases, the charter schools have 30 percentage points or more FEWER low-income students than the community they serve and than the enrollment in the traditional public school serving the same area. The paper also notes that they are many fewer black students (1/5th of charter students in Miami-Dade are black, compared to 1/3 of traditional schools) and many more Hispanic students (nearly 90% of charter school students in Miami-Dade are Hispanic, compared to 58% in the public schools).
The school also talks about schools with higher percentages of gifted and talented students, even though enrollment is supposed to be determined through a blind lottery. Some question whether the charter schools are targeting such populations, despite state and federal laws that prohibit discrimination or favoritism.
I can't go into all the details, but I encourage people to read the original article here. However, I can understand the charter schools' rebuttals. The truth is that applying to charter schools requires more energy, attention, and knowledge than it does to go to a regular public school. I don't find it far-fetched to believe that families with more--more money, more time, more gifted students, more educated parents--apply to these schools at much higher rates, and thus are a disproportionate segment of charter school student.
I also find it reasonable when charter schools argue that it is hard to find safe, appropriate, and affordable space for a school in downtown urban settings, and so most in Miami are located in the suburbs, which is not where the neediest kids live. Also, because charter schools are not required to provide transportation, only 40% of the charter schools in Miami-Dade have buses. That is a huge obstacle for most of the urban poor, which effectively eliminates the possibility of attending such innovative schools.
So while I don't know that there is active discrimination going on, the article demonstrates why the rush to increase charter schools (as was passed this year by the new Republican majority here in North Carolina) could end up making our schools even more separate and unequal than they already are.
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Friday, December 16, 2011
Sunday, November 13, 2011
New Study finds Average Test Scores for Middle Schoolers at Network-run Charter Schools Not Significantly Different than Public Schools
There was another study released this month that showed that, counter to public beliefs, the average test scores at charter schools run as a network (multiple charter schools run by the same management company, such as the KIPP and SEED schools featured in Waiting For Superman) is not statistically different than the averages at typical public schools.
But, as is so often the case with statistics, that statement obscures what is really happening. Among the 22 schools in the study, close to half had test scores in reading and math were higher than the norm for regular public schools. But about another third had test scores in those subjects that were significantly worse than public schools, with the remainder on par with the schools.
So, that means that taken as a whole, charter schools aren't doing any better than public schools. If your child goes to any individual charter school, though, there is a good chance that it will outperform the average public school. However, there is also a fair chance that it will do worse that its typical neighbors.
Once again, I don't mean to bad mouth charter schools; some are obviously doing an exemplary job, such as Raleigh Charter School here in our area. However, parents need to know that charter schools are not the panacea that many educational reformers make them out to be. Charter schools are experiments, and like all experiments, some will work out well, while others will be a failure. There are a high percentage of these network-run schools that even though they have all the things these reformers want--longer class hours, performance-based payment for teachers, etc.--they have lower test scores than the average middle school
If you want to see the report, which was done by Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, you can access it here.
But, as is so often the case with statistics, that statement obscures what is really happening. Among the 22 schools in the study, close to half had test scores in reading and math were higher than the norm for regular public schools. But about another third had test scores in those subjects that were significantly worse than public schools, with the remainder on par with the schools.
So, that means that taken as a whole, charter schools aren't doing any better than public schools. If your child goes to any individual charter school, though, there is a good chance that it will outperform the average public school. However, there is also a fair chance that it will do worse that its typical neighbors.
Once again, I don't mean to bad mouth charter schools; some are obviously doing an exemplary job, such as Raleigh Charter School here in our area. However, parents need to know that charter schools are not the panacea that many educational reformers make them out to be. Charter schools are experiments, and like all experiments, some will work out well, while others will be a failure. There are a high percentage of these network-run schools that even though they have all the things these reformers want--longer class hours, performance-based payment for teachers, etc.--they have lower test scores than the average middle school
If you want to see the report, which was done by Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, you can access it here.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Traditional Schools in LA's Lowest-Performing Areas Raised Scores More Than Charters, so Wal-Mart Gives $15 Million...for More Charters
More bad news for the charter movement came out of LA this month--well, bad news in terms of actual student outcomes. But that didn't keep the founders of Wal-Mart from donating $15 million to add 20,000 more charter students in LA and 100,000 more throughout California.
A study this month by the Los Angeles Times compared test scores among K-12 students in the city's lowest-performing areas, and found that the traditional public schools had done a better job overall at raising student performance than had the comparable charter schools, even without additional resources that had been given to the charters. In the most dramatic case, the increase among high school students who were performing at "proficient" levels was almost double that of the high schools run by other organizations.
As in the other study I discussed lately, which showed that LA charter schools had dramatically higher teacher turnover rates, it is hard to draw conclusions from a single study about such a complicated topic as educational performance. Also, Los Angels obviously has some conditions that make it different from much of the rest of the country, although it gets a lot of focus when it comes to charter schools because it is the school district with the largest number of charters, both in terms of number of schools and number of students.
However, these and some other research certainly suggest that charters are not clearly outperforming the traditional educational systems they seek to replace. But that does not seem to dissuade the well-funded proponents of the charter movement from continuing to pour more money into these experimental systems. Hence, the $15 million gift from the Walton Family Foundation to the California Charter School Association, only weeks after these studies announcing negative trends in charter school performance.
Charter schools are experiments, and it is the nature of experiments that some, many, and even most are going to fail. But it is important for parents, beguiled by the hype of media like the tear-jerking "Waiting for Superman," to remember that these charter schools ARE experiments, and there is no guarantee what will happen if their child happens to get in. Charters may end up being like the fantastical Willy Wonka story: You may feel like the luckiest child in the world if you get one of the golden tickets, and at least some will succeed tremendously, but once you are in the chocolate factory, how many will end up turned into blueberries, shrunken, or fallen down a garbage chute?
A study this month by the Los Angeles Times compared test scores among K-12 students in the city's lowest-performing areas, and found that the traditional public schools had done a better job overall at raising student performance than had the comparable charter schools, even without additional resources that had been given to the charters. In the most dramatic case, the increase among high school students who were performing at "proficient" levels was almost double that of the high schools run by other organizations.
As in the other study I discussed lately, which showed that LA charter schools had dramatically higher teacher turnover rates, it is hard to draw conclusions from a single study about such a complicated topic as educational performance. Also, Los Angels obviously has some conditions that make it different from much of the rest of the country, although it gets a lot of focus when it comes to charter schools because it is the school district with the largest number of charters, both in terms of number of schools and number of students.
However, these and some other research certainly suggest that charters are not clearly outperforming the traditional educational systems they seek to replace. But that does not seem to dissuade the well-funded proponents of the charter movement from continuing to pour more money into these experimental systems. Hence, the $15 million gift from the Walton Family Foundation to the California Charter School Association, only weeks after these studies announcing negative trends in charter school performance.
Charter schools are experiments, and it is the nature of experiments that some, many, and even most are going to fail. But it is important for parents, beguiled by the hype of media like the tear-jerking "Waiting for Superman," to remember that these charter schools ARE experiments, and there is no guarantee what will happen if their child happens to get in. Charters may end up being like the fantastical Willy Wonka story: You may feel like the luckiest child in the world if you get one of the golden tickets, and at least some will succeed tremendously, but once you are in the chocolate factory, how many will end up turned into blueberries, shrunken, or fallen down a garbage chute?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Do Charter School Burn Out Teachers?
Do charter school burn out teachers? That is the question raised by a recent study by educational researcher at the University of California at Berkeley.
In the study, the authors were looking at the statistical factors related to teachers leaving their schools. Teacher longevity at schools is correlated with positive educational outcomes, both among standardized test results as well as family satisfaction, student relationship building, and other "softer" measures of educational quality.
So the study, which was focused only on teachers in the Los Angeles school system, which can differ in many ways from most of the school systems in this country, is written in educational-ese and contains lots of data and statistics and such. I glazed over the statistics analysis and chi squares methodology and such that is part of such academic research, and I have a Masters in Education. But I think this graphic, taken from the report, can express one of the most important conclusions:
Click here to see the map in its original size.
The bottom line of this graphic is that I count 30 schools that have a teacher turnover rate of over 40%, and of that number, all but two are charter schools, which means that 93% of such high turnover schools are charters (and I don't know the exact statistics, but I think charter schools are only about 10% of all the schools in LA). So clearly, teachers are much more likely to leave charter schools than traditional public schools.
The question that the study doesn't address, however, is why. Charter teachers tend to be young; is that why more of them leave? (although more leave charter schools than is average for schools in general). Charter schools tend to be newer, which is also associated with higher turnover, but not at the rates seen in this study among the charter schools. Are the young teachers who work at charter schools more naive and/or idealistic than other young teachers, and thus leave when their fantasies encounter real educational situations? Are the demands of charter schools so intense that teachers can only maintain them for a year or two? Do the (sometimes) for-profit charter schools pay their teachers and/or offer fewer benefits or other incentives that make their staff leave for traditional schools? All of these explanations have been offered, but none have been proven.
So I don't know how to explain this data. But I do have a belief (which is backed up by some data) that students are better served by teachers with more experience and/or commitment to the school in which they teach. Therefore, I think the high teacher turnover rates should be at least a yellow caution light for those who seek to expand rapidly the charter school program (such as the Republican legislators, who this year lifted the 100-school cap on charter schools in North Carolina).
In the study, the authors were looking at the statistical factors related to teachers leaving their schools. Teacher longevity at schools is correlated with positive educational outcomes, both among standardized test results as well as family satisfaction, student relationship building, and other "softer" measures of educational quality.
So the study, which was focused only on teachers in the Los Angeles school system, which can differ in many ways from most of the school systems in this country, is written in educational-ese and contains lots of data and statistics and such. I glazed over the statistics analysis and chi squares methodology and such that is part of such academic research, and I have a Masters in Education. But I think this graphic, taken from the report, can express one of the most important conclusions:
Annual Teacher Turnover by School Size in LAUSD 2002 - 2007
Click here to see the map in its original size.
The bottom line of this graphic is that I count 30 schools that have a teacher turnover rate of over 40%, and of that number, all but two are charter schools, which means that 93% of such high turnover schools are charters (and I don't know the exact statistics, but I think charter schools are only about 10% of all the schools in LA). So clearly, teachers are much more likely to leave charter schools than traditional public schools.
The question that the study doesn't address, however, is why. Charter teachers tend to be young; is that why more of them leave? (although more leave charter schools than is average for schools in general). Charter schools tend to be newer, which is also associated with higher turnover, but not at the rates seen in this study among the charter schools. Are the young teachers who work at charter schools more naive and/or idealistic than other young teachers, and thus leave when their fantasies encounter real educational situations? Are the demands of charter schools so intense that teachers can only maintain them for a year or two? Do the (sometimes) for-profit charter schools pay their teachers and/or offer fewer benefits or other incentives that make their staff leave for traditional schools? All of these explanations have been offered, but none have been proven.
So I don't know how to explain this data. But I do have a belief (which is backed up by some data) that students are better served by teachers with more experience and/or commitment to the school in which they teach. Therefore, I think the high teacher turnover rates should be at least a yellow caution light for those who seek to expand rapidly the charter school program (such as the Republican legislators, who this year lifted the 100-school cap on charter schools in North Carolina).
Friday, February 25, 2011
Should We Expand the Charter School Program in Wake County?
This week the NC Senate passed a bill to remove the cap on charter schools in North Carolina, which had previously been limited to 100 statewide. The following are some of the arguments for and against expanding the charter school program, based on statistics for Wake County students:
PROS
Charter Schools Are Popular
Although Wake County already has the largest number of charter schools than any other county in North Carolina, those 13 charters can not come close to meeting the demand. For example, Raleigh Carter High School advises new students they have about a 13% chance of getting into the 535-member school. Applicants faced even worse odds attempting to enter Franklin Academy in Wake Forest. In 2009, 1,842 students competed for 123 open spots, which represents only a 7% acceptance rate. Even though the school expanded in 2010 to provide more openings, Franklin Academy reports that there are still about 2,000 students on its waiting list.
The existing charter schools only enroll a total of about 6,000 students. However, the high application rate indicates that many more families would choose a charter school for their children if there were additional space available.
Charter Schools Are Innovative
Freed from some of the regulatory restrictions of traditional public schools, charter schools can experiment with new approaches and curricula, although they must still conform to the NC Standard Course of Study and participate in End of Grade (EOG) Testing.
Charter Schools Outperform Traditional Schools
While national studies have not shown a clear academic advantage in comparing average charter school student performance to their peers in schools, charter schools in Wake County do seem to have better average test scores. According to the Wake Education Partnership, in 2007-08, 74% of students in Wake charters were performing at grade level, compared to 70% of general Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) students and 65% of students in public magnet programs. Similar results were reported in 2008-09, when 81% of Wake County charter students were at grade level, compared to 76% of WCPSS students and 65% of magnet students.
CONS
Charters Reduce Diversity
Charter schools are much more racially unbalanced than traditional Wake County schools. The Wake County Public School System reports that in 2010-11, approximately 50% of WCPSS students are White, 25% are Black, 15% are Hispanic, 6% were Asian, and 4% are mixed or other.
However, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction states that among the 13 charter schools in Wake County, seven have enrollments that are 75% or higher White students, while three others have enrollments that are 75% or higher Black students. Only three charter schools--Casa Esperanza, Southern Wake Academy, and Sterling Montessori--have a more racially mixed student population, although even those schools have a disproportionately high number of White students.
Charters Do Not Serve Low-Income or Special Needs Students
Charter schools receive a per-student payment for educational expenses, but not for building and facilities expenses. Therefore, they are not required to have cafeterias, nor must they participate in the free or reduced lunch programs designed to support low-income students.
Charters do not have to provide transportation for students, which can effectively eliminate students from families who do not live nearby and who not own a car or other means to get their children to school. Finally, charters do not have to offer services to students with special needs, such as learning disabilities or autism.
Charters Will Drain the Public Schools of Resource if Expanded Dramatically
Currently, Wake County charter schools only enroll about 6,000 students, compared to the 140,000+ students in the WCPSS. Thus, the issues of racial imbalances in charter school or the relatively small numbers of low-income or special needs students in charters don’t have a large impact on the entire school system. However, critics warn that as the program grows, it could continue to drain off the most affluent and successful students, leaving the public school system to deal with larger percentages of more challenging student populations, such as the low-income, non-English-speaking, and learning disabled students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)