I appreciate Mr. Leonhardt's even-handed presentation of the FACTS, that charter schools are associated with improved academic performance, while voucher schools are, conversely, statistically worse-performing than public peers (presuming that "public" includes both 'regular' and 'charter' public schools). He also rightfully separates the two, and ultimately sets the stage for what is essentially a judgement opinion, if the government should be in the position to subsidize a choice by parents to send their children to an underperforming private school. I have a hard time seeing how this is appreciably worse than parents, by default, having to send their children to an underperforming public school, and have always had a hard time accepting the argument that the funding of one choice (vouchers) is significantly responsible for the other (low performing public schools).
2
Charter schools don't the skim the best students. Horse feathers. We live at charter school central here in Arizona. The successful charter schools, eg Basis, may be open to everyone, but just the process of applying weeds out the weak applicants. The curriculum and the work requirements discourage the less motivated and able from applying. Those who do get admitted are weeded out when they can't or won't keep up. So, yes, charter schools that succeed succeed because they weed out the weak students... one way or another.
4
"School Vouchers"?
What an insidious idea masquerading as "reform"!
Taking PUBLIC monies and giving them to PRIVATE entities--or ones run by religious groups (in some cases to avoid public requirements), many of which are run by aggressive EDU-PROFITEERS, like DeVos's cronies in Michigan, or Eva Moskowitz in New York (pulling in close to a $million a year! (roughly what 8 experienced school principals make together!)
Vouchers, like charter schools, may have begun as real reform ideas but have clearly been appropriated by the right as a bludgeon for public schools and teachers.
What an insidious idea masquerading as "reform"!
Taking PUBLIC monies and giving them to PRIVATE entities--or ones run by religious groups (in some cases to avoid public requirements), many of which are run by aggressive EDU-PROFITEERS, like DeVos's cronies in Michigan, or Eva Moskowitz in New York (pulling in close to a $million a year! (roughly what 8 experienced school principals make together!)
Vouchers, like charter schools, may have begun as real reform ideas but have clearly been appropriated by the right as a bludgeon for public schools and teachers.
6
Ms De Vos is both a strong supporter of for profit schools and the owner of a group of such schools. This is primairily the reason, that while claiming to favor transparency, she is opposed to any efforts to measure the success of such schools. These for profit institutions are not bound by the requirements to hire teachers qualified in the subject (s) they teach. Those teachers are not members of any teachers union and can be fired at will. They have no protections against excessive overtime or even guaranteed base salaries. More than one such school has failed and closed its doors mid-year, leaving teachers and students with no recourse. The schools can also pick and chose which students they will admit- pretty much denying opportunites to children with disabilities or with behavioral problems. These for-profit schools exist for the benefit of the owners. They really don't care about their students or their teachers.
5
Betsy DeVos got her job because she's a friend of Donald Trump and because she's fantastically rich, not because she has any expertise or any semblance of any real experience in the field of education. Her confirmation hearings, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she's dumber than a box of rocks. There undoubtedly is money to be made that she can syphon off to greedy business friends, and she now has the opportunity to try and shove her obnoxious religious beliefs into the national education system. The only thing extraordinary about this woman is the fact that she's just another opportunistic crony of Donald Trump.
2
Not sure why this article doesn't mention Arizona, home to the five best high schools in the nation -- all charters.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-rankings
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-rankings
David, I appreciate your stance against the effectiveness of vouchers and the dangers of privatization to the public purposes of education. However, I think you should re-examine your unequivocal support of expanding charters. Many of the arguments you use against vouchers also apply to charter expansion.
Most studies have found charters do about as well in the narrow measure of test scores as the non-charter public school counterparts. According to the respected research from CREDO, about a quarter of charters do better than their non-charter public schools counterparts, a quarter worse (not even counting the schools that close) and about a half do the same. Yet there are substantial cost to expanding charters—cutting funds to the remaining public schools, disruption of communities if schools are closed or converted to charters such as in Chicago, the number of failed charters, re-segregation, and non-trivial examples of self-dealing and fraud. These latter deceptions are not trivial but have diverted substantial funds from public to private gain.
You also assume that charters operate under strong accountability and transparency. That is not true in many states such as Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona. For-profit and online schools are some of the most egregious violators.
Thus, your full-throated endorsement of charter school expansion is highly questionable and potentially damaging—you might want to take a more balanced and nuanced approach.
Most studies have found charters do about as well in the narrow measure of test scores as the non-charter public school counterparts. According to the respected research from CREDO, about a quarter of charters do better than their non-charter public schools counterparts, a quarter worse (not even counting the schools that close) and about a half do the same. Yet there are substantial cost to expanding charters—cutting funds to the remaining public schools, disruption of communities if schools are closed or converted to charters such as in Chicago, the number of failed charters, re-segregation, and non-trivial examples of self-dealing and fraud. These latter deceptions are not trivial but have diverted substantial funds from public to private gain.
You also assume that charters operate under strong accountability and transparency. That is not true in many states such as Michigan, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona. For-profit and online schools are some of the most egregious violators.
Thus, your full-throated endorsement of charter school expansion is highly questionable and potentially damaging—you might want to take a more balanced and nuanced approach.
6
A free country is a country where people can make choices other people, including the government, consider less than the best. So if vouchers increase the diversity of educational offerings, then they increase freedom, and rejecting vouchers reduces freedom, which is un-American. The government can serve us by trying to make clear what the risks and costs and benefits are, but to make choices for us treats bureaucrats as a master race, paid for by the rest of us to tell us what to do.
"Secular" is a point of view just as much as "religious." (Each, of course, has varieties: Rand vs Marx, Christ vs Mohammed...) Posting, say, the Ten Commandments expresses a point of view; forcing them to be taken down is not neutral, but imposes a different point of view--and "Shut up" is something it's hard to say politely. We Christians and other religious people are taxed to pay for education; how about giving us our choice of what to pay for, as all Americans enjoy choice of food and of cars? "Secular" people who fret about paying for religious schooling should stop asking us to pay for secular schooling. I imagine we'd be willing to forego reparations :)
Vouchers as spending-cut scholarships, paying students to leave the public schools early, would leave more money for student in the public schools, and by reducing pressure for more facilities might enable more to be spent in classrooms.
Bureaucrats are people, and competition forces people to improve.
"Secular" is a point of view just as much as "religious." (Each, of course, has varieties: Rand vs Marx, Christ vs Mohammed...) Posting, say, the Ten Commandments expresses a point of view; forcing them to be taken down is not neutral, but imposes a different point of view--and "Shut up" is something it's hard to say politely. We Christians and other religious people are taxed to pay for education; how about giving us our choice of what to pay for, as all Americans enjoy choice of food and of cars? "Secular" people who fret about paying for religious schooling should stop asking us to pay for secular schooling. I imagine we'd be willing to forego reparations :)
Vouchers as spending-cut scholarships, paying students to leave the public schools early, would leave more money for student in the public schools, and by reducing pressure for more facilities might enable more to be spent in classrooms.
Bureaucrats are people, and competition forces people to improve.
1
We Christians and other religious people are ALSO taxed to pay for the Pentagon and a multiplicity of "intelligence agencies" whether we feel they're adding to our quality of life or detracting from it; how about ALSO giving us "our choice" of what to pay for, as all Americans enjoy choice of food and of cars?
See the problem? Funding our government---an institution that serves and protects the Common Good---cannot be compared to "food and cars." To treat our shared common needs in the same way as individual consumer choices is madness. And to do so will always be counterproductive.
See the problem? Funding our government---an institution that serves and protects the Common Good---cannot be compared to "food and cars." To treat our shared common needs in the same way as individual consumer choices is madness. And to do so will always be counterproductive.
4
I am puzzled why the vague concept of charters is greeted with acclaim as an innovation. Some charters, but not all, have a definite educational philosophy, a specific curriculum, and new teaching techniques . For many others,their innovation is that they pay teachers less and the school is for profit.
4
Billionaire Betsy Devos, like all crackpot conservative GOP, want to privatize everything to do away with the federal government, and thereby democracy, because when you leave things to a state option, only the things that are tax cuts for the wealthy get done. DeVos, like all of trump's billionaire cabinet, already game the system and continue to do so in office, not serve american people. What makes DeVos worse than the worst, is her end game of getting public funds for her fanatic evangelical christian schools so she can create a theocracy. She look's very scary in this picture and she is scary, she thinks separation of church and state went too far. That's right, this know nothing claims the founding fathers who knew personally of religious persecution by arrogant supremacists like DeVos went too far. So a person with her fanatic ideas should not be anywhere near the education of children. She is part of the billionaires whose oligarchy of buying elections and politicians will soon turn to fascism. Trump and his cabinet of know nothing hucksters all have to go.
3
If you must, take your choice of schools.
But if it's a sectarian school, don't take my money.
I'm willing to pay my share for education.
I'm not willing to pay for fantasy.
Plus, I have the first amendment.
But if it's a sectarian school, don't take my money.
I'm willing to pay my share for education.
I'm not willing to pay for fantasy.
Plus, I have the first amendment.
3
Mr. Leonhardt states "many charter-school systems are subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight." That has not been the case for most of the history of charters here in Ohio. Only recently have charters faced an apples-to-apples comparison, and the results for many aren't flattering. "Reformers" (backed by big money from charter school operators) are fighting to keep failing charters open. They're showing their true motivations here -- blind hatred of government and deification of businessmen rather than a desire to provide students the best education.
8
Charters make triage possible. If we don't allocate enough talented people and other resources to the educational mission, triage is necessary, albeit distasteful.
"Successful" charters (a minority) mostly enroll the kids who'd have been more successful in public school. But grouped together while excluding everyone else, they make the school look good--even if they're not doing as well as they'd have done in a public school.
They're not triage. They're a scam.
They're not triage. They're a scam.
7
Forget DeVos and her backers having a open mind. Or that she shares the goal of improving education. Shared goals like that are a liberal delusion. That is irrelevant to their cause, which is to end public schools which they derisively call "government" schools. This is not a wild charge. These people will admit this in private but they won't say it in public for obvious reasons. But their actions speak louder than words.
3
Public education is not only a service, it is a promise. It needs to be at least adequately, but preferably generously, funded. The teaching profession needs to be well compensated and well respected. We as a country must recognize that there is nothing more important than preparing our children for the future.
Historically, this country has never respected its public education system or the teachers who work within it. That simply must change. And the "for-profit" model has no more place in public education than it does in health insurance.
Historically, this country has never respected its public education system or the teachers who work within it. That simply must change. And the "for-profit" model has no more place in public education than it does in health insurance.
The supporters of public education call for more money as the solution to its failure to educate. On an inflation adjusted basis, public schools today cost far more per student than they did decades ago when they once actually provided a quality education. The reasons are many. Classroom discipline has been lost from restricting teachers authority. The waning of the traditional two parent household has reduced parental involvement in home support of a child's education. The enormous increase in the power of teachers unions has skewed the focus of schools toward serving teachers, not children. The virtual monopoly of state funded public schools has created a bloated system without accountability. Parents seeking the superior education of private and parochial schools are forced to pay twice, once in their taxes and once again in their non-tax deductible tuition costs.
It is the responsibility of government to ensure that every child receive an education sufficient to fully participate as citizens. It no longer does. Government cannot legislate that every child have two parents that will make sure they do their homework and reinforce discipline. It can change the monopoly that public schools have by encouraging competition in education. Fully transferable tuition vouchers for the full cost of education, not some piddling $2,500 tax deduction, that can be used at any school whether it be public, private or parochial will quickly force public schools to improve.
It is the responsibility of government to ensure that every child receive an education sufficient to fully participate as citizens. It no longer does. Government cannot legislate that every child have two parents that will make sure they do their homework and reinforce discipline. It can change the monopoly that public schools have by encouraging competition in education. Fully transferable tuition vouchers for the full cost of education, not some piddling $2,500 tax deduction, that can be used at any school whether it be public, private or parochial will quickly force public schools to improve.
There's one small bit of accuracy in your comment: teachers don't have enough authority to control the classroom.
But with equivalent students, public schools are far more successful at educating than public or charter schools. The solution is to invest in public schools and give teachers the authority to address student misbehavior. Encouraging inferior alternatives in the name of "competition" will only make things worse. That's what it's done so far.
But with equivalent students, public schools are far more successful at educating than public or charter schools. The solution is to invest in public schools and give teachers the authority to address student misbehavior. Encouraging inferior alternatives in the name of "competition" will only make things worse. That's what it's done so far.
5
"Last week, the Education Department, which she runs, released a careful study of the District of Columbia’s use of school vouchers, which she supports."
Betsy DeVos did not run the Department during the course of the study, or at least not during most of it. So the fact that she runs the Department now does not mean that she must endorse it. Further, the introductory material crows that none of its authors had a financial interest in its outcome. Big whoop. In politically sensitive issues having your political views - your pride - validated can be at least as important as money. So there may well have been a conflict of interest after all. Most social scientists are hard left. I can't wait to see if an opposing analysis finds this study's conclusions, or methodology, questionable. Happens all the time with this issue.
Betsy DeVos did not run the Department during the course of the study, or at least not during most of it. So the fact that she runs the Department now does not mean that she must endorse it. Further, the introductory material crows that none of its authors had a financial interest in its outcome. Big whoop. In politically sensitive issues having your political views - your pride - validated can be at least as important as money. So there may well have been a conflict of interest after all. Most social scientists are hard left. I can't wait to see if an opposing analysis finds this study's conclusions, or methodology, questionable. Happens all the time with this issue.
1
Ms. DeVos is doing a great job as the Secretary of Education. Thank you.
Mr. Leonhardt makes the argument that charter schools outperform public schools, but, the studies he sites fail to properly support his point. The Washington study he sites discusses whether school improvements can be explained by gentrification. The Boston study he sites shows significantly better performance by charter school students in middle school math. The Denver study looks at mathematical methods to evaluate random assignment systems on charter school enrollment, and does show that these methods show charter schools outperforming public schools. The New Orleans study compares pre-Katrina public schools with post-Katrina charter schools – a questionable approach. The New York study looks at 5 key factors that improve education outcomes in both charter and public schools. The Florida study looks at the impact of charter high schools on college admission rates. And, the Texas study shows significantly lower math and reading scores for charter school students.
In fact, according to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, on average, charter school students perform about the same as public school students. Why does Mr. Leonhardt misrepresent the research?
In fact, according to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, on average, charter school students perform about the same as public school students. Why does Mr. Leonhardt misrepresent the research?
8
I don't understand the opposition to charters assuming they are held accountable. I am a product of the public school system all the way through graduate school so it isn't like I am against public schools, but I do think that competition does make people perform at a higher level. Charters wont take hold unless there is a need. I can't testify to the issue of all charters but my daughter is in a charter school, and in the grade ahead of her, they have 3 special ed teachers for a class that totals only 44 kids so I can assure you that charters don't only get the cream of the crop academically. The key to good charters starts at the state level where the standards are set. If a state requires rigorous standards for a charter to exist, then there wont be an issue. It seems to me that public schools also need to be held to the same high standards to ensure that all kids get a good education.
2
Charters benefit from the ability to pick and choose their students; that your child's school doesn't employ that benefit, and actually chooses to enroll hard-to-teach kids (if true), doesn't negate that. In practice, charters are almost never held accountable. There's very little oversight.
None of which means that charters can't be good schools. If run by ethical educators, they will be. But most charters aren't run by educators, and there's no real oversight to try to make them good schools, so most aren't.
None of which means that charters can't be good schools. If run by ethical educators, they will be. But most charters aren't run by educators, and there's no real oversight to try to make them good schools, so most aren't.
5
As I mentioned in my original post, the states set the standards. Here are the basic admission standards for California. I can't vouch for the standards of the other 49 states but my point was that if your state allows for charters to pick and choose, blame your state, not the charter concept.
"The law also requires that a public charter school be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations and prohibits the conversion of a private school to a charter school. Public charter schools may not charge tuition and may not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability."
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/csabout.asp
"The law also requires that a public charter school be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations and prohibits the conversion of a private school to a charter school. Public charter schools may not charge tuition and may not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability."
http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/re/csabout.asp
1
Part and parcel of the charter concept is release from oversight (though it may be called "bureaucracy" in order to put a bad taste in your mouth). On paper, few charters can pick and choose students. In practice, nearly all can. That's integral to the charter concept and essential to the (relatively rare) claims of "successful" charters.
3
This column ignores a major reason why many parents don't want to send their kids to a public school, charter or otherwise, which has little to do with results on math or reading tests - religious beliefs. If your only argument against school vouchers is test results, there is no reason why parents who choose to send their children to private schools for religious reasons should not be entitled to use vouchers.
2
Yep. But the Constitutional ban on government support of religion certainly means that vouchers should be illegal in that case.
There's really no good, legitimate reason for vouchers, and lots of solid arguments against them. But that's all based on facts, and our current President, as well as our current Secretary of Education, have very little use for facts or reality.
There's really no good, legitimate reason for vouchers, and lots of solid arguments against them. But that's all based on facts, and our current President, as well as our current Secretary of Education, have very little use for facts or reality.
2
I think another nuance that is being missed is to distinguish results of 'for profit' voucher schools vs other voucher schools. I read that the 'for profit' ones are the one's with the worst record.
1
You're thinking of charters. Voucher schools are usually not-for-profit private schools.
Private schools, non-profit charters, and for-profit charters are all usually less effective at teaching than public schools, but for various ideological reasons (and profit, in the one case), lots of effort is made to obscure that fact.
Private schools, non-profit charters, and for-profit charters are all usually less effective at teaching than public schools, but for various ideological reasons (and profit, in the one case), lots of effort is made to obscure that fact.
2
What we need to do is to figure out why some schools improve the success odds more than others. If many charters improve student performance, the question is why. If many public schools work, what do they do to make a difference? There are a few researchers interested in this question, but there is little emphasis on answering these questions. After reading much of the research, my guess is that strong leadership, smaller classes, a focus on a full curriculum (e.g. hands on science, learning history through books and literature, art and music, strong writing programs, the use of leveled books in elementary grades), engaging instruction, community programs, adult involvement, support systems, and the like are the factors that make a difference -- whether charter or public! Let's learn from the best schools and try to emulate them.This costs money, but will be well worth it in the long run.
Which is more likely to be effective: funding one publicly funded system that does all of those things, or funding that system PLUS another, quasi-privatized system with redundant buildings, administration, support staff, and overhead, that doesn't do any of those things as well, but generates private profit?
If you said just the first system, you're the "supporter of traditional public schools" that Leonhardt is sort of sneering at. If you said the second, you support charters and you're not too bright.
If you said just the first system, you're the "supporter of traditional public schools" that Leonhardt is sort of sneering at. If you said the second, you support charters and you're not too bright.
2
It's generally the zip code that makes a difference!
School choice is great. There should be more of it. But the selection should be among public schools not to corporations whose primary goal and objective is to shareholders and profits. They aren't aligned. They all eventually devolve into Trump Universities.
3
School choice, in practice, allows parents to shop around for the schools that are willing to give the grades parents want to see for whatever level of effort students are willing to put out.
It's less likely to be as damaging if we limit it to just actual public schools rather than charters or vouchers, but school choice is the sort of thing that sounds good in theory and is destructive in practice.
It's less likely to be as damaging if we limit it to just actual public schools rather than charters or vouchers, but school choice is the sort of thing that sounds good in theory and is destructive in practice.
3
It is not true that "many charters are open to all comers". Many districts do not offer transportation to charter schools, so only students whose parents can drive them to and from school can attend the charters. In the city of Anchorage, Alaska we have lots of school choice, but none of it comes with public school transportation. Thus, we have a pubic system with charter schools, language immersion schools and optional schools that only benefit those who can get to school using private transportation. The " Haves" have options, the rest of the population must attend their neighborhood school.
3
This study is a complete joke because the program was designed for failure. Look right in the report. The funding for those vouchers is $8,000. That's right, just EIGHT THOUSAND dollars. In the report on page 1. That figure is the only thing you need to read from the report, you may stop reading right there. Any decent researcher should have noted that such program is a complete joke and is designed for failure. There's no private school that charges that kind of money, the year of study in decent private school in DC will be at least $25-30K. To give those parents $8,000 is an insult, considering that DC spends $25,000 per year per students on its failing public schools. No wonder half the people refused those worthless vouchers. I have no clue what kind of private schools parents used those money for. Probably some obscure religious schools which teach only Bible and don't teach math at all, considering the resulting difference in scores. In fact it is a God's miracle the scores did not fall further.
I hope that Ms. DeVos ignores this worthless study and will push Congress to design a decent voucher program for DC students. The one that actually allows them to cover the cost of private schools.
I hope that Ms. DeVos ignores this worthless study and will push Congress to design a decent voucher program for DC students. The one that actually allows them to cover the cost of private schools.
1
For what we spend on education at every level in this country, we should do a much better job of matching students to their future jobs, based on the predicted needs of business. Yet, when Mike Bloomberg suggested it, the left's heads nearly exploded.
2
You are confusing education with training.
3
The purpose of schools is not to train worker bees for the future. Developing lifelong learners should be the goal!
2
I don't want to be mean about it or anything, but could you not show the picture of Betsy DeVos so often? Thanks.
5
This article uses a logical fallacy to argue that education will lead to economic growth and equality. Just because those who are more highly educated earn a better living than those who are not does not support the idea that if everyone was highly educated everyone would earn higher wages. Instead we will likely just have more highly educated fry cooks and Uber drivers.
More and better education is a desirable goal in itself; but, it is not the answer to economic inequality.
More and better education is a desirable goal in itself; but, it is not the answer to economic inequality.
3
As a German living in Florida I still don't quite get the charter school concept. We have some top rated charter schools nearby, but they are so highly rated that enrollment ends up in a lottery.
A lot of folks from school districts with poorly rated public schools apply and a few lucky ones get in, the rest goes back to those poorly rated schools, because, well - they have to.
How is that fair or even effective? If the goal is to bring quality education to everybody, regardless of where you live, shouldn't the money go into beefing up that poorly rated public school to make it better?
A lot of folks from school districts with poorly rated public schools apply and a few lucky ones get in, the rest goes back to those poorly rated schools, because, well - they have to.
How is that fair or even effective? If the goal is to bring quality education to everybody, regardless of where you live, shouldn't the money go into beefing up that poorly rated public school to make it better?
16
c/s are another tool to destroy public ed in america
sooner or later they will succeed , and then only people with money will go to school
and since by then robots will have displaced those on the bottom , there wont be any need for most of you
ta ta, and thanks for the help
The charter schools, generally speaking, have worse instruction but better advertising.
The lucky kids are the ones who don't get into the charters.
The lucky kids are the ones who don't get into the charters.
4
If we could agree on the goals of education and agree to test to make sure those goals are achieved, it would not matter if children received their schooling in public, parochial or private schools, or were home-schooled, and the providers of education in each and every one of those environments should benefit by public funding for the service they do to the community.
However, If we continue to be dismissive about "teaching to the test" a large number of for-profit or simply inept schools will turn out a very large number of uneducated children. Of course, there has to be more beyond the test, but the minimum must be required.
Bad as it is that such schools take money from well-meaning parents, or from taxpayers; much worse that they steal children's lives.
However, If we continue to be dismissive about "teaching to the test" a large number of for-profit or simply inept schools will turn out a very large number of uneducated children. Of course, there has to be more beyond the test, but the minimum must be required.
Bad as it is that such schools take money from well-meaning parents, or from taxpayers; much worse that they steal children's lives.
Ok I read some of the study re vouchers that you cited. Don't think the results were exactly as you put them. For one thing, those who were offered the scholarships and declined did worse as well. In public schools? Also the difference in reading scores lacked statistical significance. Finally, all these studies came out of the DOE from the Obama administration- who wanted to stop the voucher program.
6
Any reasonable person wants to end voucher programs. They siphon money out of public schools without any benefit.
Many people still believe that an education is bought, so that if students don't learn as much as they should it somehow must be the fault of the school or its teachers. The truth is, education is a culture that begins with and is supported primarily at home. Comparing outcomes in one educational setting versus another is difficult for this reason due to self-selection. A more useful analysis would attempt to pinpoint why the teaching methods used in different settings lead to different outcomes. My bet is on the greater influence coming from the characteristics of those who choose one type of schooling or another than from the methods used in teaching.
1
Mr. Leonhardt:
as long as 'charter-schools' remain "public",
subject to accountability from top to bottom,
required to enroll all students,
and not simply a trough wherein the 'leaders' make
enormous salaries at the cost to all other staff members
and to the students:
let them attempt well thought-out 'new-ideas'.
failing any of these general requirements,
close the doors on an 'idea' that, to date, has failed.
in the meantime,
re-address the standard public school system,
and reorient the needs of the students to a future
that they can actually achieve.
this will likely require us to establish,
among other things,
a higher-pay-scale with more aides, tools, and resources
for our most difficult schools and their surrounding neighborhoods.
we need far more of the "Finland" idea than Ms. DeVos' - -
who conveniently canceled a visit to an L A area Charter School
that is being operated for special needs students.
imagine that?
5
Isn't it true that the major motivator for charters the ability to hire non-union teachers? Levels of supervision of charters varies district by district, as does curriculum development, funding mechanisms, ability to dismiss teachers, ability to cherry-pick students, ability to expel students, etc. But isn't it true that the one common denominator among charters is non-union teachers? The whole enterprise appears to me to just be payback for teachers' unions uniformly supporting Democratic candidates. Yes, I know all the arguments given in favor of charters. But would rich people like DeVos really give a darn if it wasn't a convenient way to cripple their political adversaries? They don't care about poorer people in any other regard.
Schools should also have as a goal the transmission of the knowledge and values of the community. This does not happen if there is no community, if everybody is trying to figure out how to give their child an advantage. Notice that this means that many small towns with populations of about 10,000 need at least two schools so that the vaunted "choice" can exist. This means that two or three chemistry teachers or physics or math teachers are needed in a relatively small town. Good luck in finding so many specialized teachers when the U.S. is already suffering a shortage of teachers. The history of "school choice" begins in 1955 (by Milton Friedman), right after the famous Brown v. Board of Ed. Supreme Court case. As such, "school choice" is nothing more than School Segregation 2.0.
ALL INNER-CITY SCHOOLS ARE DYSFUNCTIONAL - not conducive to teaching and learning. Management's policy of "mainstreaming" has created the problem. Vouchers or Charters' would not sole the problem.
In NYC we have just three magnet schools (entry gained on performance on specialized tests) - all other students get lumped with the "chronic mis-behaviors" and "unteachables". (excuse the "politically incorrect" statements).
When a class of 30 students contain few earnest ones (say 10) and the rest are all disruptive - soon even the 10 earnest ones lose their focus and start behaving like the others.
BETTER TEACHER TRAINING is a myth - there is no psychology or teaching methods the teacher can rely on to cajole chronic misbehaving students to start paying attention.
SOLUTION - Create two tiers of High Schools (HS). First tier, the magnets: these provide seats for no more than 12,000. Second tier (32 HSs, one for each of 32 school districts) - for students who score in the second band percentile scores on the Specialized tests. These shall provide seats for 64,000. This way we shall have 76,000 students first class high schools that shall compete with the best in the world.
In NYC we have just three magnet schools (entry gained on performance on specialized tests) - all other students get lumped with the "chronic mis-behaviors" and "unteachables". (excuse the "politically incorrect" statements).
When a class of 30 students contain few earnest ones (say 10) and the rest are all disruptive - soon even the 10 earnest ones lose their focus and start behaving like the others.
BETTER TEACHER TRAINING is a myth - there is no psychology or teaching methods the teacher can rely on to cajole chronic misbehaving students to start paying attention.
SOLUTION - Create two tiers of High Schools (HS). First tier, the magnets: these provide seats for no more than 12,000. Second tier (32 HSs, one for each of 32 school districts) - for students who score in the second band percentile scores on the Specialized tests. These shall provide seats for 64,000. This way we shall have 76,000 students first class high schools that shall compete with the best in the world.
Private schools, Vouchers and Charter schools all take certain populations out of public schools, because they can screen out special ed. students, low economic kids in general, leaving the public schools with the more difficult students to teach. Public schools may be failing to deliver the best graduates simply because they may have students that are several years behind their age peers, and because of the poor funding of public schools, those students may not be given an appropriate education. By taking off the "cream" we public teachers are left with declining numbers of easy kids to teach. In NM all public money is put into a formula, so that all discricts receive the same amount of money per pupil, that is school funding is not dependent on local property tax. This is an equitable solution, but in NM all publicschools are equal, but poor. Public education is the best hope for a democracy, having students of all kinds and finances. Anything that decreases public school funding is a negative thing.
For over thirty years I taught the kids no one else wanted, children who had murdered before coming to my elementary class, children who didn't "know their colors" or had ever seen a fork, let alone a book. Expecting a regularly trained teacher to do this job is specious, but taking the well-prepared students out of public ed. only contributes to our fractured society.
For over thirty years I taught the kids no one else wanted, children who had murdered before coming to my elementary class, children who didn't "know their colors" or had ever seen a fork, let alone a book. Expecting a regularly trained teacher to do this job is specious, but taking the well-prepared students out of public ed. only contributes to our fractured society.
You are a very special person, who did a job not many could.
I would just like to point out that a student with issues will do better with more attention in a smaller class (so if the charter school "drains" students - and the number of teachers remains the same in the school that loses students (!!) -so much the better. Hopefully, it will be recognized that these teachers are doing something difficult, and they will be paid accordingly.
I would just like to point out that a student with issues will do better with more attention in a smaller class (so if the charter school "drains" students - and the number of teachers remains the same in the school that loses students (!!) -so much the better. Hopefully, it will be recognized that these teachers are doing something difficult, and they will be paid accordingly.
When the student population goes down, faculty positions are cut. When I began teaching, we had 750ish students and seven English teachers. Now (nine years later) we have 525 students and 5 English teachers (perhaps 4 next year).
Who know education was so complicated? Because our public schools were overcrowded, we chose to homeschool (admittedly, not many people in today's economy have that choice). It was not "school-at-home," but entailed reading widely and wildly, pursuing interests which could change from day to day, and watching plenty of David Attenborough. My son is now a chemistry major with a physics minor.
To transition from a homeschooler to college, he was able to attend a charter school at 16, called Early College High School, in which students could take community college classes for college credit - amazing! Other charter schools in the area (for which there was a lottery) concentrated on nature or drama or other specialties.
Most parents can tell where their children's talents lie, be it science or writing or creating with their hands and hearts. If a child could be immersed in an environment that encourages these gifts, that would be amazing. Too many are funneled through a system of bewildering subjects which bore them, forcing them to try to survive long days of sitting in crowded classrooms with overwhelmed teachers. How frightening for both the student and the teacher. I understand that our country's early schools were supposed to train a generation of children to be docile workers. But - seriously - there has to be something better.
To transition from a homeschooler to college, he was able to attend a charter school at 16, called Early College High School, in which students could take community college classes for college credit - amazing! Other charter schools in the area (for which there was a lottery) concentrated on nature or drama or other specialties.
Most parents can tell where their children's talents lie, be it science or writing or creating with their hands and hearts. If a child could be immersed in an environment that encourages these gifts, that would be amazing. Too many are funneled through a system of bewildering subjects which bore them, forcing them to try to survive long days of sitting in crowded classrooms with overwhelmed teachers. How frightening for both the student and the teacher. I understand that our country's early schools were supposed to train a generation of children to be docile workers. But - seriously - there has to be something better.
2
I'm certain homeschooling can work.
I'm also certain that it's successful in a small fraction of cases where parents crow about how successful they were at it.
I'm also certain that it's successful in a small fraction of cases where parents crow about how successful they were at it.
"Charters have the potential to help a lot of poor children in the immediate future, and it’s hard to think of a more important progressive goal."
Agreed but I noticed Democratic politicians are more interested in the cash they get from teacher unions then doing what's best for the students.
Agreed but I noticed Democratic politicians are more interested in the cash they get from teacher unions then doing what's best for the students.
4
Teachers' unions are almost always on the side of students. If you do what teachers' unions want, you're doing what's best for students in 99 times out of 100.
Do you really think that a group of people who voluntarily went into a low-income, low-status, difficult job to help students would act against students' interests?
Do you really think that a group of people who voluntarily went into a low-income, low-status, difficult job to help students would act against students' interests?
1
There is no evidence to prove what you say. Many charters can and do counsel underperforming and behavior problem students out.
I'll be open to embracing charter schools as soon as (1) they stop bleeding the public schools' budgets, and (2) they recognize their districts' contracts with teachers' unions.
2
Our author writes:
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. "
The Washington Post reported in 2013:
"D.C. charter schools expelled 676 students in the past three years, while the city’s traditional public schools expelled 24, according to a Washington Post review of school data."
Did anything change in the last few years? So the 'traditional' public schools retain students who are likely less disciplined, maybe even violent. How many of those bad apples does it take to ruin a classroom?
Our author writes:
"Unfortunately, this caricature mixes several ideas that do not necessarily go together. In particular, it conflates vouchers (coupons that let parents use their tax dollars for private schools) with charter schools (public schools that operate outside the usual bureaucracy)."
And the 'usual bureaucracy' is? I would suggest any system that allows the teachers to collectively bargain.
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. "
The Washington Post reported in 2013:
"D.C. charter schools expelled 676 students in the past three years, while the city’s traditional public schools expelled 24, according to a Washington Post review of school data."
Did anything change in the last few years? So the 'traditional' public schools retain students who are likely less disciplined, maybe even violent. How many of those bad apples does it take to ruin a classroom?
Our author writes:
"Unfortunately, this caricature mixes several ideas that do not necessarily go together. In particular, it conflates vouchers (coupons that let parents use their tax dollars for private schools) with charter schools (public schools that operate outside the usual bureaucracy)."
And the 'usual bureaucracy' is? I would suggest any system that allows the teachers to collectively bargain.
It's not about poverty and it's not about marginal public education--it's about family.
So many of the children of immigrants who came to this country at the beginning of the last century attended overcrowded schools that today would rank with many of our worst in large metropolitan centers and whose family income would be well below the poverty line, especially during the Depression, but somehow those children went on to college to graduate and to have successful careers, as is the case with many immigrant Asian families today. So how do we solve that problem, parents who care?
So many of the children of immigrants who came to this country at the beginning of the last century attended overcrowded schools that today would rank with many of our worst in large metropolitan centers and whose family income would be well below the poverty line, especially during the Depression, but somehow those children went on to college to graduate and to have successful careers, as is the case with many immigrant Asian families today. So how do we solve that problem, parents who care?
3
The knowledge base is so much larger and the expectations for today's students much greater.
Charters will not accept students of low performance or other "negatives" which impact "achievement" metrics.
2
"The question for DeVos is whether she’s an ideologue committed to prior beliefs regardless of facts or someone who has an open mind. "
Anyone in Michigan will tell you she is an ideologue. Her (and her husband's) promotion of unregulated for-profit schools and private religious schools have devastated education in Michigan, especially in Detroit. This hasn't changed her views one bit.
Anyone in Michigan will tell you she is an ideologue. Her (and her husband's) promotion of unregulated for-profit schools and private religious schools have devastated education in Michigan, especially in Detroit. This hasn't changed her views one bit.
Charter school are "working"? Depends on your definition.
The charter myth has long since been exposed. The secret to their (test score) success lies in a simple formula: Cherry pick the best students; cull out the non-compliant with "no-excuses" discipline, focus primarily on math and ELA test-prep so scores can be touted as being equivalent to a quality educational program, spend heavily on marketing, use the public schools a depository for the non-compliant students, refuse to educate the most challenging special needs and ELL students, eliminate transparency and accountability, and pretend you are on a level playing field with public schools.
Charter schools are in reality, publically funded private institutions. Hedge funders love them as an investment vehicle which pretty much says it all.
Charter schools defund public schools both directly and indirectly.
If that's "working" Mr. Leonhradt, you have a very different definition than this 38 year veteran public school teacher.
#titloneteacherworktaxfree
The charter myth has long since been exposed. The secret to their (test score) success lies in a simple formula: Cherry pick the best students; cull out the non-compliant with "no-excuses" discipline, focus primarily on math and ELA test-prep so scores can be touted as being equivalent to a quality educational program, spend heavily on marketing, use the public schools a depository for the non-compliant students, refuse to educate the most challenging special needs and ELL students, eliminate transparency and accountability, and pretend you are on a level playing field with public schools.
Charter schools are in reality, publically funded private institutions. Hedge funders love them as an investment vehicle which pretty much says it all.
Charter schools defund public schools both directly and indirectly.
If that's "working" Mr. Leonhradt, you have a very different definition than this 38 year veteran public school teacher.
#titloneteacherworktaxfree
Everything is better when profit is the overriding motivation. Just look what it's done for American democracy — and Christianity!
3
Show me a charter school in a crumbling building with out-of-date equipment, mold on the walls, overcrowded classrooms, and children for whom English is a second language. Show me one with a high percentage of children with IEPs in special education. Show me one with little to no support staff. Then compare the performance of that school with a public school in the same district.
Alternatively, take a list of all in-coming kindergarten students, randomly divide it into two groups: one attends a charter school and the other an equally resourced public school in the same district. Follow those students for six years and compare outcomes. That is the only way to make an unbiased assessment of performance.
Short of doing either of those, but preferably the latter, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are cherry-picking your students, and hence, your results are biased. Shame on you and shame on the NYT.
Alternatively, take a list of all in-coming kindergarten students, randomly divide it into two groups: one attends a charter school and the other an equally resourced public school in the same district. Follow those students for six years and compare outcomes. That is the only way to make an unbiased assessment of performance.
Short of doing either of those, but preferably the latter, you are comparing apples to oranges. You are cherry-picking your students, and hence, your results are biased. Shame on you and shame on the NYT.
Good to see Leonhardt accepts choice. As Chairman Mao once said, it is time to let a hundred flowers bloom and see what works. But we do know that quite a bit of the ossified public school system in most inner cites is not working.
I feel a certain schadenfreude at the brewing internecine civil war in the "reform" camp. Like Mrs. Devos, Mr. Leonhardt has fallen into the same trap: an outsider claiming to know what ails the education system while peddling a solution to the problem. It frequently annoys me that every Tom, Dick and Mary with a few coherent ideas about education can just magicked up "common sense" solutions to problem as complex as our education system. If I were to offer recommendations to doctors, lawyers, NFL quarterbacks, robotics engineers, reporters, or mechanics, about their policies affecting their JOBS, I WOULD BE LAUGHED AT. And yet, here we are.
"CHOICE" is a false dichotomy. In Philadelphia, almost 40% of our district budget goes to charters. Instead of fixing the system of public schools we have, we now have TWO systems of schooling vying for the same amount of money. In effect, my students get less money per pupil because the charters are siphoning money away from public schools. So here's the "choice" from the ground level, Mr. Leonhardt: As a parent, do I send my kid to a charter school, therefore depriving MOST of the children in the public school system (after all, my kid comes first... sorry, other kids) or do I send my kid to the public school system that is severely underfunded and will get even LESS funds later but I am "supporting" public schools (maybe at the cost of my child's education).
So, NO, Mr. Leonhardt, CHOICE isn't working either. Because math.
"CHOICE" is a false dichotomy. In Philadelphia, almost 40% of our district budget goes to charters. Instead of fixing the system of public schools we have, we now have TWO systems of schooling vying for the same amount of money. In effect, my students get less money per pupil because the charters are siphoning money away from public schools. So here's the "choice" from the ground level, Mr. Leonhardt: As a parent, do I send my kid to a charter school, therefore depriving MOST of the children in the public school system (after all, my kid comes first... sorry, other kids) or do I send my kid to the public school system that is severely underfunded and will get even LESS funds later but I am "supporting" public schools (maybe at the cost of my child's education).
So, NO, Mr. Leonhardt, CHOICE isn't working either. Because math.
17
You answered your own question - the point for a parent is to educate his/her own kids, not to serve as boosters for some government system. The system exists to serve your kids; kids do not exist to serve the system. To the extent that people are able to intelligently pursue self and family interests, kids are likely to get the best education possible. I too am from Philadelphia, and I am aware that many neighborhoods have minimal access to decent schools, but those tend to be the neighborhoods that have minimal access to decent ANYTHING, and so that doesn't really seem like an education problem per se since it is really just a symptom of large scale concentrated poverty.
"Well-educated adults earn much more, live longer and are happier than poorly educated adults.".......And well-educated adults are less likely to be deceived by puffed up con men like Trump. A crank once said - America doesn't have bad schools; America doesn't have bad teachers; what we have is bad students. But in any case the problem with charters is how to determine if there is a real improvement or whether the perceived improvement is merely the result of cherry picking better students. Until experiments are run in which charter schools replace failing public schools, taking all of the students as a group, the answer to that question will remain unresolved.
7
What limited experience we have with charters doing that (and for some reason, charter operators tend to avoid it like the plague) supports what charter opponents (otherwise known as "people who've studied education") suggest: charters are usually worse schools with better PR.
2
Education must remain a public good, paid for with public funds. For-profit enterprises should have no place in either education or health care, for the same reason: the very "clients" who need the services the most are the ones with the least ability to pay. It is not profitable to educate poor children who need a lot of intensive attention to succeed, nor is it profitable to provide medical care to those with severe chronic illnesses, many of whom will be unable to work because of their illness. Any time those who need a service the most are the same people who have least ability to pay for it, the claim that the for-profit sector can meet the need is ludicrous.
14
It's also not profitable to spend ten's of thousands per year from K-12 for "students" who end up in retail and menial trades. We should emulate the military recruitment system that matches aptitudes with staffing needs and identify people as early as possible based on future business needs. There's no legitimate reason that taxpayers should have financed a high school education for any of the employees at my nearest Walmart whose jobs do not require any skills beyond perhaps the sixth grade.
2
When your local Wal-Mart's employees started high school, there was no reason to know they'd be Wal-Mart employees and not engineers.
The lovely (and expensive) thing about American education (where it hasn't been partially dismantled by Republicans in the name of capitalism) is that it offers opportunity to everyone, not just the children of the rich.
The lovely (and expensive) thing about American education (where it hasn't been partially dismantled by Republicans in the name of capitalism) is that it offers opportunity to everyone, not just the children of the rich.
1
The goal is not to provide widgets for jobs of the future.
"Charters have the potential to help a lot of poor children...." And for the years they have been in existence, they have not done it. Almost all charters I have looked at in our urban area have a much lower percentage of "free lunch" students than the public schools. These children are excluded. Charters do not have to take anyone at anytime, and they don't.
14
Maybe the lesson that should be taken is for public schools to begin excluding free lunch students too.
1
I agree entirely. Charters have had OVER a quarter century to prove themselves and the results are on a spectrum from "No Difference to Absolutely Abysmal."
Even the pro-charter CREDO study---still the most comprehensive study ever conducted on charters, ironically financed by the extremist right-wing Walton Foundation---found that only 17% of charters were better than public schools nationally. Less than half showed no difference, but most importantly, roughly 40 PERCENT were, in the words of the study, "significantly worse" than public schools.
Charters, like the Drug War and "Deficits Don't Matter" is a relic more than a quarter century old that has been thoroughly discredited by actual data and experience. It's time for presumably well-meaning "liberals" like Leonhard, Kristof and Bruni to finally admit that the jury was in a long time ago and charters are guilty of failure.
Even the pro-charter CREDO study---still the most comprehensive study ever conducted on charters, ironically financed by the extremist right-wing Walton Foundation---found that only 17% of charters were better than public schools nationally. Less than half showed no difference, but most importantly, roughly 40 PERCENT were, in the words of the study, "significantly worse" than public schools.
Charters, like the Drug War and "Deficits Don't Matter" is a relic more than a quarter century old that has been thoroughly discredited by actual data and experience. It's time for presumably well-meaning "liberals" like Leonhard, Kristof and Bruni to finally admit that the jury was in a long time ago and charters are guilty of failure.
3
To refuse to educate free lunch students would be to abandon any pretense of meritocracy and admit that we're an oligarchy.
The idea is disgusting. And I say that as someone who received free lunch as a student and has contributed far more to society than it cost for my public education.
The idea is disgusting. And I say that as someone who received free lunch as a student and has contributed far more to society than it cost for my public education.
1
The assertion that charter schools are "subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight" conveys remarkable ignorance about the true nature of state standards. Perhaps they are in some states, but in Ohio those standards are negligible.
14
Same with Wisconsin, Cfiverson - at least in the Milwaukee area. The rapid closing of charter schools - due, basically, for a lack of oversight and thought on the establishment of them.
The standards for charter oversight are pretty low everywhere, but the pro-charter narrative requires convincing people that the generally horrible charters they see around them are not representative. Likewise the generally good public schools most people see.
1
David Leonhardt has his heart in the right place---who doesn't want to see more educational opportunity for poor children---but his head is elsewhere, at least on the issue of charters and so-called "school choice."
Charters are about PRIVATIZATION of education, not innovation. I'm pro-innovation and strongly anti-privatization. Why? Because the former builds and the latter destroys.
The innovations that HAVE yielded some improvements and some positive changes in our public schools need not come from privatized entities; my child goes to a VERY innovative and successful PUBLIC school that is a living, breathing rebuttal to those who wrongly argue that parental choice---and worthy innovations---can only happen at a charter "school."
That idea is entirely wrong and increasingly laughable as this very timely example of the damage charters have done in California---just to cite one of many examples---will illustrate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58f8e8dde4b086ce58980e8f
Charters are about PRIVATIZATION of education, not innovation. I'm pro-innovation and strongly anti-privatization. Why? Because the former builds and the latter destroys.
The innovations that HAVE yielded some improvements and some positive changes in our public schools need not come from privatized entities; my child goes to a VERY innovative and successful PUBLIC school that is a living, breathing rebuttal to those who wrongly argue that parental choice---and worthy innovations---can only happen at a charter "school."
That idea is entirely wrong and increasingly laughable as this very timely example of the damage charters have done in California---just to cite one of many examples---will illustrate: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/58f8e8dde4b086ce58980e8f
14
Public charter schools can act as models for the rest of the public schools as long as they show a way to better education and their improved performance is not due to skimming the best and most motivated students out of the public school system. It is critical to remember that the point of public education is to educate everybody, not just the most motivated. Students that are hard to reach are the ones that need the most attention, however frustrating that may be. Not enough attention is paid to how to reach the most difficult students and whether schools in poor districts have the resources to do so.
4
The people who use the phrase "public charter schools" are almost always lying to you.
The rest of your comment is reasonable, and seems to recognize the fact that charters are a non-public scam, but you might want to avoid that phrase in the future. It's a creation of people who want to push an inaccurate narrative.
The rest of your comment is reasonable, and seems to recognize the fact that charters are a non-public scam, but you might want to avoid that phrase in the future. It's a creation of people who want to push an inaccurate narrative.
2
I completely agree: "Public Charter Schools" is the equivalent of "Health Care Access" with both phrases designed to obscure, twist and confuse voters from recognizing the clear and verifiable truth.
TRANSLATION
"Public Charter Schools" = Privatization of public education
"Health Care Access" = You're entitled to access health care...if you can pay whatever insurance companies demand out of your own pocket.
TRANSLATION
"Public Charter Schools" = Privatization of public education
"Health Care Access" = You're entitled to access health care...if you can pay whatever insurance companies demand out of your own pocket.
Leohardt never states what a "high performing" student is; he just says it's "easy to measure." I can only assume he is referring to standardized tests. Does he realize how faulty the data is for an invidual teacher having a great impact on one kid's individual test score? Kids flourish in schools where the environment where teachers receive training in the skills everyone is teaching and where there is enough money for all the extras needed
Charters also are not always so highly regulated. One only has to look at De Vos' Michigan. Finally parents are integral, which is why charters are often guilty of easing kids out who don't have appropriate parental support.
Charters also are not always so highly regulated. One only has to look at De Vos' Michigan. Finally parents are integral, which is why charters are often guilty of easing kids out who don't have appropriate parental support.
6
I think the important question is not what school is better, but why one school is better than other. What makes it better? Do they explain material different? Do they have special motivational tools? Does it just mixing children from different backgrounds make children more motivated? After figurng out. what actually works, we could think how the experience of better schools could be used to help the schools performing poorly.
1
Things that tend to make a school better:
Teachers with degrees in education.
Teachers' unions.
Public (not private or charter) schools.
Small class sizes.
Experienced teachers.
Wealthy, motivated students tend to score better on standardized tests, and that confuses (or enables, depending on how knowledgeable they are about the misstatement) the people who want to praise private or the (rare) "successful" charters over public schools, but those are indicators of better students, not better schools.
Teachers with degrees in education.
Teachers' unions.
Public (not private or charter) schools.
Small class sizes.
Experienced teachers.
Wealthy, motivated students tend to score better on standardized tests, and that confuses (or enables, depending on how knowledgeable they are about the misstatement) the people who want to praise private or the (rare) "successful" charters over public schools, but those are indicators of better students, not better schools.
1
Vouchers don't work. Charters don't work. In both cases, a lot of money has been spent to fund "research" that suggests otherwise, but neither improves student learning. Even school choice between public schools doesn't work, since parents almost always go shopping for the school that will give their kids the highest grades, not the school that will challenge them to achieve the most (and therefore give the lowest grades). When parents say "The public schools failed my children, but they found success at [insert reform option here]," that's almost certainly the principle operating.
What does work? Public schools, wherever kids show up, behave, and do the work. And even in the "failing" public schools where most kids don't do those things, the kids who do can usually get a very good education. What we should invest in is generous funding for public schools (not privatized alternatives), small class sizes, and teacher training--the prescriptions Leonhardt lists as the suggestions of "defenders of traditional public schools" and subtly turns his nose up at. In reality, the "defenders of traditional public schools" are usually the only group that knows much about education.
What does work? Public schools, wherever kids show up, behave, and do the work. And even in the "failing" public schools where most kids don't do those things, the kids who do can usually get a very good education. What we should invest in is generous funding for public schools (not privatized alternatives), small class sizes, and teacher training--the prescriptions Leonhardt lists as the suggestions of "defenders of traditional public schools" and subtly turns his nose up at. In reality, the "defenders of traditional public schools" are usually the only group that knows much about education.
27
Eric,
You're posting the same type of comment multiple times. There are many parents of charter students with a very different view and your anecdotal story is not their story. Your assertion that "defenders of traditional public schools" are usually the only group that knows much about education is self-serving nonsense. There are plenty of other people who know a lot about education and there are many places where the traditional public schools need to improve.
You're posting the same type of comment multiple times. There are many parents of charter students with a very different view and your anecdotal story is not their story. Your assertion that "defenders of traditional public schools" are usually the only group that knows much about education is self-serving nonsense. There are plenty of other people who know a lot about education and there are many places where the traditional public schools need to improve.
2
What I'm saying is not anecdotal, and anybody who knows anything about education (and values it, rather than looking to profit from its destruction) is necessarily going to support public schools. They're not perfect, but they're the best model we have.
In USA our all systems has one common denominator defies all solutions.
Population.
These are not solutions fro 320 million population country. Look around what is this population group.
China, India, Brazil and USA.
Which one of these nations has admirable education system gives their young fair and good education, The answer is None.
America is pretending to solve this issues as if we are in the Canada population category, wrong?
We do not have any similarity with Canada. Canada is a develop d nation with low population, which make s very easy to solve many problems.
We need JFK like president, Apollo like projects to solve our education, health, infra structure problems. There is no way we can solve thes e problems
Population.
These are not solutions fro 320 million population country. Look around what is this population group.
China, India, Brazil and USA.
Which one of these nations has admirable education system gives their young fair and good education, The answer is None.
America is pretending to solve this issues as if we are in the Canada population category, wrong?
We do not have any similarity with Canada. Canada is a develop d nation with low population, which make s very easy to solve many problems.
We need JFK like president, Apollo like projects to solve our education, health, infra structure problems. There is no way we can solve thes e problems
4
Not only is Canada relatively small...it is overwhelmingly white and asian. Canada strictly controls its borders and its immigration policies -- they ONLY take skilled, educated workers! they have NO illegal immigration.
If we transferred to Canada enough of our poor black, hispanic and rural white population -- so that THEIR demographics matched ours -- their educational systems, single payer health care and all other government systems, would collapse entirely within six months.
This is also true for Scandinavia, Europe, the UK. They do not have our diversity and have NO IDEA what we are up against.
If we transferred to Canada enough of our poor black, hispanic and rural white population -- so that THEIR demographics matched ours -- their educational systems, single payer health care and all other government systems, would collapse entirely within six months.
This is also true for Scandinavia, Europe, the UK. They do not have our diversity and have NO IDEA what we are up against.
Charter schools are a great concept if we are really willing to look at how they succeed and consider if we want to apply those changes to our public schools. It is fine to generalize and say the schools perform well because of "a lack of bureaucracy", but that doesn't really tell us anything.
We toured our local charter school and considered it for our son. We are fortunate to have both a good charter school and a good public school in our district. What became clear on the tour, and from parents we talked to, was that a big reason that charter schools do better on tests is that they focus on the test itself. Much of the activity at the school is built around succeeding on the test.
The reason they do this is because higher test scores ensure they continue to get funding and that people want to open more charter schools (usually run by the same people). They spend more time testing, taking practice tests, reviewing test scores, and more time encouraging the poorer performing students to stay late and sometimes on weekends, to work on their test scores.
I think we have to ask ourselves if these test scores are the correct way to measure student achievement, if they really create better, stronger students, or if they only encourage schools to take time away from teaching to focus on testing. I am all for standards but I am not sure if this is the right standard.
We toured our local charter school and considered it for our son. We are fortunate to have both a good charter school and a good public school in our district. What became clear on the tour, and from parents we talked to, was that a big reason that charter schools do better on tests is that they focus on the test itself. Much of the activity at the school is built around succeeding on the test.
The reason they do this is because higher test scores ensure they continue to get funding and that people want to open more charter schools (usually run by the same people). They spend more time testing, taking practice tests, reviewing test scores, and more time encouraging the poorer performing students to stay late and sometimes on weekends, to work on their test scores.
I think we have to ask ourselves if these test scores are the correct way to measure student achievement, if they really create better, stronger students, or if they only encourage schools to take time away from teaching to focus on testing. I am all for standards but I am not sure if this is the right standard.
Education, like defense, is too important a task to leave to the competition of the market place; we would not even fathom the idea of competing groups of mercenaries to provide our defense. As such, well funded public schools are the only repository upon which a democratic republic should put its faith, its funds and its future.
33
While I agree with your sentiment, we do use mercenaries. Blackwater is a prime example. We have been privatizing all aspects of the military. Not a good idea. In fact, mercenaries were a contributing factor to the fall of Rome.
I am not sure this is a perfect parallel. Our defense system is not a purely government system in the way that it is in, say, China - the high tech weapons systems etc. are largely a function of private industry but the operation of those systems is a government task - and the "too important a task" argument might suggest combining the "army" (i.e. public school systems and teachers) with some educational equivalent of Raytheon (which actually designs and makes the missiles, after all). Perhaps the strong charter operators are precisely that.
School Choice has a fatal flaw. In a democracy, EVERY child should be offered a good education. School choice lets some children, usually the brightest and most motivated, whose parents care the most, to opt out of the public school system, leaving the rest of the students in even worse shape. And, now good students aren't even there to motivate them as role-models. Choice schools have the ability to cherry-pick, accepting or rejecting any student who applies, so they can stick the other schools with all but the most promising students. They don't have to worry about educating the disabled, children who are learning English as a second language, or children who are slower learners and need more personal attention from qualified, trained teachers. They can skim the cream and leave public schools worse for it. The ONLY solution is to be sure that EVERY neighborhood school has qualified teachers, manageable class sizes, necessary maintenance, & the proper equipment. Meanwhile, the public charter schools siphon away money that leaves the rest of the public system even more bereft. It ends up creating two classes of people (pun intended), those who are privileged or lucky enough to go to a good school & those who are trapped in public school systems that are allowed to degrade year by year. You should be able to live in ANY neighborhood & know your children will get a good education. That's the sine qua non for a democratic society.
40
If the same mix of student attends both the charter and public schools, the charter schools will be the public schools. In some areas, parents aren't pursuing better education by opting for charter - they're fleeing violence.
1
Clearly we lack the will and the resources to educate every child. We spend more money on athletics and administrators than on teaching and we don't do what it would take to attract and retain effective teachers. Given the limited resources and the challenges of the twenty first century, we need to make sure the best and brightest get excellent educations. We cannot count on importing talent from the rest of the world indefinitely.
Parents fleeing violence by running to charters are also running away from the best instruction.
Better to fix the violence in public schools, which is often exaggerated in any case.
Better to fix the violence in public schools, which is often exaggerated in any case.
David, you obviously don't know much about Michigan, the mecca for charters.
We have some charters that perform well and many that don't. Our charters are mostly for-profit businesses. Our charters have very little oversight and many were managed so poorly that they have closed. Several have been targets for corruption charges.
David, you paint a way too glossy picture of charters.
We have some charters that perform well and many that don't. Our charters are mostly for-profit businesses. Our charters have very little oversight and many were managed so poorly that they have closed. Several have been targets for corruption charges.
David, you paint a way too glossy picture of charters.
16
Mr. Leonhardt is lavishly generous and optimistic in giving Mr. DeVos the benefit of the doubt on educational issues or policies. Being an ideologue rich girl who has dabbled in educational programs, her lack of qualifications and knowledge about public education became all too apparent in her confirmation hearings. The GOP has yet to learn from its mistakes, as was the vaunted "No Child Left Behind" fiasco of the Bush years with it over-emphasis on test score results as a standard for success. Mr. Leonhardt comparison to LeBron's coaches as geniuses is most apt.
So, when will the GOP and conservatives learn you can't put quality public education on a pay as you go basis? My guess is NEVER!
Gosh, they still keep pandering trickle-down supply side fiscal policy in the face of the historical evidence it just doesn't work.
So, when will the GOP and conservatives learn you can't put quality public education on a pay as you go basis? My guess is NEVER!
Gosh, they still keep pandering trickle-down supply side fiscal policy in the face of the historical evidence it just doesn't work.
5
I seem to recall that the other enthusiastic sponsor of "No Child Left Behind" was not from the Bush family, but the Kennedys. Perhaps the revered Senator Teddy?
One of Betsy DeVos's four announced goals for schools when she was just mucking up schools on a local level was to use schools as a tool "to bring the Kingdom of God to Earth." I don't know about you, but I find just the thought of that kind of religious zealot directing the Department of Education "terrifying and absolutely vile" (to borrow from Kurt Vonnegut).
7
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best." That's true in theory, less true in practice.
Most open enrollment charters have employees visit applicants families prior to the child actually enrolling. If the visiting employee encounters an intelligent, positive child with involved, supportive parents, they play up the support the child will receive to achieve his or her goals. If they don't think the child will succeed, they stress the rigor and difficulty of the school to dissuade the child from actually attending their school. These visits have a big factor in skimming the cream of the crop for these schools.
Most open enrollment charters have employees visit applicants families prior to the child actually enrolling. If the visiting employee encounters an intelligent, positive child with involved, supportive parents, they play up the support the child will receive to achieve his or her goals. If they don't think the child will succeed, they stress the rigor and difficulty of the school to dissuade the child from actually attending their school. These visits have a big factor in skimming the cream of the crop for these schools.
6
There are a million ways for charters to pick and choose kids, and the lack of oversight that was minimized if not outright denied in this article lets charters get away with them all.
6
"Conventional wisdom usually defines a good school as one attended by high-achieving students, which is easy to measure. But that’s akin to concluding that all of LeBron James’s coaches have been geniuses."
This isn't a great lesson in logic. First, no thoughtful person would ever define good schools simply as those attended by high-achieving students, i.e. selective schools to which only high-achievers are admitted.
Second, one of the most fundamental problems in education today is that almost no one agrees that high-achievement is "easy to measure."
Finally, LeBron James is an athlete of exceptional ability. You can't say much of anything about the quality of his coaches, other than the fact that none of them destroyed his God-given talents. A persuasive analog might involve finding a large population of athletes with a wide range of innate abilities who achieved NBA greatness under the tutelage of a single coach.
This isn't a great lesson in logic. First, no thoughtful person would ever define good schools simply as those attended by high-achieving students, i.e. selective schools to which only high-achievers are admitted.
Second, one of the most fundamental problems in education today is that almost no one agrees that high-achievement is "easy to measure."
Finally, LeBron James is an athlete of exceptional ability. You can't say much of anything about the quality of his coaches, other than the fact that none of them destroyed his God-given talents. A persuasive analog might involve finding a large population of athletes with a wide range of innate abilities who achieved NBA greatness under the tutelage of a single coach.
4
Almost every way we attempt to measure school quality looks at the kids enrolled, not the instruction they receive.
Yes, no thoughtful person would set things up that way. But that's the system that's been mandated by law.
Yes, no thoughtful person would set things up that way. But that's the system that's been mandated by law.
2
Why not try to address the problems with public schools? They are publicly funded, so make sure those taxpayer dollars are effectively administered and the public schools properly funded. The main impediment to that is partisanship like so many other issues your nation faces. Profit should have no voice in education, just as it should have no voice in healthcare.
11
Who do you think will be teaching at the charter schools? I worked in a great public school, with high achieving students, a good budget, and supportive families. Our staff was loaded with teachers who left both private and charter schools for better pay, opportunities for staff development, and better benefits.
Given that we are looking at a teacher shortage, where will future teachers choose to work? In charters with poor pay, and fewer benefits or retirement? I don't think so.
Given that we are looking at a teacher shortage, where will future teachers choose to work? In charters with poor pay, and fewer benefits or retirement? I don't think so.
7
Of course they want to be paid twice as much, retire 15 years earlier and be free of any fear of firing or discipline (no matter how bad they are)!
Who wouldn't want that? but there are more teachers than public union jobs, and with more charters and private schools, this trend will continue.
Many teachers will not have any choice.
Who wouldn't want that? but there are more teachers than public union jobs, and with more charters and private schools, this trend will continue.
Many teachers will not have any choice.
I'm horrified by this column. I have great respect for David Leonhardt and usually agree with his views but his views on charter "schools" are absolutely wrong. Notice how he has cited no verifiable evidence for his biased and incorrect views about charters. His hyperlinks are anecdotal, yet he has the audacity to criticize we parents and taxpayers who see charters for the massive fraud that they are.
I'm not an educator. I AM a parent, a very involved community member and a taxpayer. I'm more moderate than "progressive" and I'm appalled by the mendacious campaign to "normalize" charters and let them overwhelm and eat way at our nation's proud tradition of free, universal public education for all.
Mr. Leonhard---instead of defending the failed record of charter "schools" I would urge you to fight for full funding of ALL public schools, something charter apologists constantly fail to do. Sorry to see you joining their increasingly dwindling ranks.
I'm not an educator. I AM a parent, a very involved community member and a taxpayer. I'm more moderate than "progressive" and I'm appalled by the mendacious campaign to "normalize" charters and let them overwhelm and eat way at our nation's proud tradition of free, universal public education for all.
Mr. Leonhard---instead of defending the failed record of charter "schools" I would urge you to fight for full funding of ALL public schools, something charter apologists constantly fail to do. Sorry to see you joining their increasingly dwindling ranks.
10
We live in a town with 4 elementary schools, 1 middle school and 1 high school. There is heavy engagement by parents in all of the schools, the teachers send their kids to our schools, administrators at every level are accessible. Our neighborhood elementary school is the weakest link and Zillow shows it as below average. But our experience there was fabulous: great kids, excellent teachers, parents who believed in raising a village. By the time the kids graduated from MS, and certainly all through HS, the kids who had attended our "low-performing" elementary school were represented in every measure as the best: they played sports, were in the band, graduated with high honors, were attending fine universities, participated in student government and clubs, etc. Many of the lower income kids (who are the statistical reason for our elementary schools lower ranking) did just as well as the kids like mine from more well to do families. Rock on public schools. May you survive the currant trumpist and GOP attacks. No way should one dollar of tax payer money go towards parents who choose the local Catholic School, or to send their kids to an out of district charter.
8
Perhaps the main reason that charter schools are successful is because they "operate outside the usual bureaucracy". This allows for greater flexibility. If you've been around as long as I have (I'm 61), you've seen a long of changes in the school system. I grew up in Yonkers and still live there. I attended Yonkers Public School and so did my children. When I was in school, the Board of Education took up two floors of a small office building. Today it takes up that entire building and a former high school. There were more children in the public school system than there are now. Maybe a big solution to the problem that plague traditional public schools is to reduce the bloated, top heavy bureaucracy of a modern public school system and put more power into the hands of the Principals that actually run the schools.
3
One man's "bureaucracy" is another man's "oversight."
Charters, in most cases, run without any meaningful oversight. Their "success" is usually due to the fact that they can pick and choose kids, then cook the books to claim any results they want.
Charters, in most cases, run without any meaningful oversight. Their "success" is usually due to the fact that they can pick and choose kids, then cook the books to claim any results they want.
2
@Eric: it is public schools who have little or no oversight -- they are fiefdoms, run by greedy public unions for their own personal benefits -- they don't care about children at all.
"I'll care about children, when they pay dues to my union" -- Al Shankar
"I'll care about children, when they pay dues to my union" -- Al Shankar
What are we using to measure school quality? Test scores? If that is your measure of a good school then you're making a huge mistake. And this same mistake is made over and over again. Politicians wanted "accountability." So we create this whole testing system by which we measure school and student performance. This forces all the public schools to "teach to the test." We know these test scores do not measure future success in professional, personal, or college level endeavors. Yet we continue to use them as though they are an accurate reflection of everything we need kids to get from K-12. You can't compare public, charter, and private schools until we agree on useful parameters by which to gage them. And you can't compare a selective religious private school with a private Montessori Elementary that strives to be inclusive of all abilities.
This whole discussion exists because many parents are seeing the current public system fail their children in some way. We shouldn't be fighting for vouchers or not. We should be fighting to free up teachers and schools to adopt more modern child focused teaching methods. We should be fighting to fund public schools to allow a better teacher student ratio. If we make the public schools better then no one will feel the need to go elsewhere. But no one is talking about the real issues. So parents see no hope for making things better and understandably seek out a better more rounded education for their children.
This whole discussion exists because many parents are seeing the current public system fail their children in some way. We shouldn't be fighting for vouchers or not. We should be fighting to free up teachers and schools to adopt more modern child focused teaching methods. We should be fighting to fund public schools to allow a better teacher student ratio. If we make the public schools better then no one will feel the need to go elsewhere. But no one is talking about the real issues. So parents see no hope for making things better and understandably seek out a better more rounded education for their children.
4
The writer's assertion that identifying a good school is hard is incorrect. It may take more time than one would like, require some digging, interviewing, and some shoe leather. Walk through the school when it's busy, when it's quiet, and outside when it's dark. Listen. Talk to the principal, as many teachers as you can find, a custodian, a lunch lady, a bus driver, and a few parents whose children attend. Visit a couple of classes, even if you have to listen at the door; if that's not allowed, you don't want your kids there. Last, after you've done all that, look at the performance data, but don't be too seduced or discouraged by them because you probably already know what to do.
5
Mr. Leonhardt cited references to support his view that charter schools (choice) is working. However, the first two of his references that I checked did not support that conclusion. Specifically, the Washington reference showed that all public schools in Washington DC were improving. There was no breakout of charter schools alone. The other reference that I checked was Texas. In that case the article cited that charter schools were not doing as well as traditional public schools. Perhaps, Mr. Leohardt needs to be more careful with the evidence that he cites.
5
Again , an editorial such as this ignores the elephant(s) in the room - which is (are):
1. Charters do skim off the "best" kids.
2, kids with no parental support will never succeed.
The schools in poor areas all suffer from many of the same problems, but funding is often not one of them, esp in the inner cities. The problem is a lack of parental support, interest, etc. And, while no one is willing to admit it, it's because there are too many kids coming from single-parent/broken homes. Until the home life is fixed, forget EVER getting education success, en masse.
Additionally, because of my first point, you end up with charters skimming, even if they don't know it. Why? Because the best kids come form families where the parents are interested and involved. Guess whose parents try to get them into charter schools ?? So even if the charter isn't intentionally skimming, by creating a situation where the only kids that come in, are the ones whose parents signed them up/entered a lottery, they are getting the "best" kids. Which means that the Public Schools are left with the rest . . .
1. Charters do skim off the "best" kids.
2, kids with no parental support will never succeed.
The schools in poor areas all suffer from many of the same problems, but funding is often not one of them, esp in the inner cities. The problem is a lack of parental support, interest, etc. And, while no one is willing to admit it, it's because there are too many kids coming from single-parent/broken homes. Until the home life is fixed, forget EVER getting education success, en masse.
Additionally, because of my first point, you end up with charters skimming, even if they don't know it. Why? Because the best kids come form families where the parents are interested and involved. Guess whose parents try to get them into charter schools ?? So even if the charter isn't intentionally skimming, by creating a situation where the only kids that come in, are the ones whose parents signed them up/entered a lottery, they are getting the "best" kids. Which means that the Public Schools are left with the rest . . .
1
The problem is that Mrs. DeVos is not an objective judge of studies and results. She is a religious fanatic whose devotion to vouchers is to allow public funds to pay tuition at religious schools. As was demonstrated during her confirmation hearing, she has little knowledge of our public system of primary education beyond her anti-government biases. Her stated goal is to use vouchers to "bring about God's kingdom on earth". This is not a person we can expect to be open to the scientific study of the results of her stated positions on school choice.
4
Even more important than lifting income is that education, especially if it teaches civics, encourages civic responsibility. We need that very badly right now.
4
This column parallels nicely to a neighboring one on the winnowing of white Christians, now a minority. But DeVos and her ilk, based on her own beliefs and background, must insist on religious schools receiving voucher funding to improve Christian propaganda. I am confident she prays about it. Yet, our illegitimate president has nary a religious bone in that overweight body. Corinthians 2? But he knows he has the support of the uneducated who are also those most religious. Can't offend the stupid.
2
Why do we not learn from other nation's health plans ????
3
You invited us to write you specific to your uncertainties about health insurance and immigration laws. [email protected] When I clicked on the link it took me to a generic NY Times site. Here is my message: if you lived at poverty level, you might have different views on both topics. And, if you lived in an area where workers from south of the border were exploited for their cheap labor, you might also have a different take. I'm 77 and have lived near poverty level all my life - despite being absurdly hard working - and I'd be lost without Medicare.
5
We have compulsory education laws. To meet this requirement we have public schools. But this is clearly not enough. If you choose not to send your child to public school the state is now obliged to pay to send your child wherever you want. Talk about entitlement creep. I can't wait until we are all required to have a gun and the state will have to pay for whatever gun we want.
2
"the state is now obliged to pay"
No. The other _tax-payers_ are now obliged to pay.
No. The other _tax-payers_ are now obliged to pay.
1
Like many, this author assumes the goal of the private school voucher effort is to improve educational attainment. To the contrary, the goals are to 1) control the curriculum in order to teach conservative economics theory and 'originalist' hogwash about the American Constitution, and 2) to generate profits for primate corporations that will start private schools all over the country once this private school voucher scam gets underway.
5
The author gives blanket approval to charters and encourages expanding them, but uses the qualifier "many" over and over in reference to them. Here in Ohio, charters have been largely a failure. They enrich the private operators who run them (either through the school being run for profit or by a non-profit that outsources its operations to for-profit enterprises suspiciously owned by people involved in the operation of said charter.) They do not, as the author suggests, have to take every student. They skim, they have kids miss testing windows by removing them from the school beforehand, and they turn away students with disabilities. Charters operate fraudulently, falsifying attendance records. They employ and rapidly burn out teachers fresh out of college - the turnover rates are absurd. Meanwhile, charter operators and proponents lavish campaign funds on our state legislators and governor.
What magic fix do charters offer, I wonder? It seems the greatest benefit is in large urban areas where they can offer choice and a bypass of massive district bureaucracies. Could we not simply just reduce bureaucracy in our schools, give more choice of movement between traditional public schools, and not argue to reduce oversight that has the huge potential for fraud and theft of public money?
What magic fix do charters offer, I wonder? It seems the greatest benefit is in large urban areas where they can offer choice and a bypass of massive district bureaucracies. Could we not simply just reduce bureaucracy in our schools, give more choice of movement between traditional public schools, and not argue to reduce oversight that has the huge potential for fraud and theft of public money?
5
You say charters have been a failure, but they've enriched their investors, which just shows that you don't understand what the purpose is supposed to be. Charters nearly everywhere do a worse job teaching kids, but charters generate much more profit than public schools. Since the goal is to profit at students' expense, charters are successful.
1
“It’s an argument for a political compromise: fewer vouchers, more charters.” I hope politicians take you up on this.
Far better if we end both vouchers and charters, since both are scams.
This reads like an attempt, now that more proof is coming out that vouchers are harmful, to distance other forms of school choice and pretend they're not. The reality is that everything wrong with vouchers is wrong with charters. The two systems are similarly lacking in oversight and result in lower-quality instruction from an essentially private school. The only real difference is that, with vouchers, the money that's taken from public schools is given to parents to spend on a private school, while with charters, it's given to the privatized school directly.
Charters often claim "success" by carefully controlling who can enroll and who can stay enrolled. In some cases, they're not allowed to do that on paper, but oversight is so lax that they can do so in practice pretty much everywhere. This is similar to the way that private schools seem to have better outcomes than public schools, but in either case, the successes are based on selectivity. The actual instruction at public schools is higher, but the public schools have to take EVERY student, not just the ones they want.
We'd be far better off as a country if we abandoned the privatization experiments of vouchers and charters and put the funding toward our public schools. But with our current government of oligarchs, and with the fact that charters are a good investment opportunity, don't hold your breath.
Charters often claim "success" by carefully controlling who can enroll and who can stay enrolled. In some cases, they're not allowed to do that on paper, but oversight is so lax that they can do so in practice pretty much everywhere. This is similar to the way that private schools seem to have better outcomes than public schools, but in either case, the successes are based on selectivity. The actual instruction at public schools is higher, but the public schools have to take EVERY student, not just the ones they want.
We'd be far better off as a country if we abandoned the privatization experiments of vouchers and charters and put the funding toward our public schools. But with our current government of oligarchs, and with the fact that charters are a good investment opportunity, don't hold your breath.
5
The question one should ask is why the students underperformed. Are they coming from poorly performing schools into schools that are more rigorous? Then one would expect lower scores initially. Are the students being tracked after more than one year? A blanket statement that the students do worse when using vouchers doesn't give enough information.
2
"The anecdotes about failed charters are real, but they’re not the norm."
Actually, failed charters ARE the norm. Except they don't fail and close as advertised--usually they keep failing kids year after year.
But if you structure a "research study" correctly, you can give the opposite impression, and "journalists" looking to push a pro-charter narrative can use that mistaken impression to support their story.
Actually, failed charters ARE the norm. Except they don't fail and close as advertised--usually they keep failing kids year after year.
But if you structure a "research study" correctly, you can give the opposite impression, and "journalists" looking to push a pro-charter narrative can use that mistaken impression to support their story.
4
I am for the best education a child can be exposed to. That said, I do not believe the educations system should be a for profit entity. And the same can be said for health care. Because you cannot be focused on profit when it comes to either of these extremely important aspects of a child's live. Let the educators and administrators concentrate on improving all children's lives, not fight over vouchers, for profit, etc. Do the job you were trained to do. This goes for the parents as well It is not a child's fault that they may have been born in poverty
Here is hoping that Betsy DeVos has a conscience and not just a profit motive.
Here is hoping that Betsy DeVos has a conscience and not just a profit motive.
43
I'm guessing you celebrated May Day yesterday?
I wished I had thought to do that.
2
For-profit enterprises have a fiduciary duty to consider their investors' return on investment above the needs of the people they serve. For-profit health's greatest obscenity is that its primary goal is maximizing its shareholders' dividends. Second, come the bloated salaries & bonuses of the executives and bureaucracies of the companies, and, only a far distant third is the service the company purports to sell. This may be acceptable in selling cars, where the customer can walk away & keep the old model a couple of years, but the absolute need for healthcare & education is inelastic, so the sellers are free to set the (grossly inflated) prices, & consumers have no acceptable choice but to pay blood money.
3
Call me an old curmudgeon, I don't care how many education "choices" you make available, kids will not succeed if they do not show up ready to learn. This begins at home, with parents (or not). Blaming public schools is wrong. It's the environment outside of school hours that is the problem. Address that!
8
I tend to agree. With 2 kids now grown and educated in 2 different countries, I've seen more ineffectual parents than ineffectual teachers. And I'm sure saying that will get me into lots of trouble...
2
Just make sure that whatever system diverts tax money from traditional education doesn't re-segregate and tribalize us.
It's not healthy for kids to spend their entire school years only with others of their religion, or race, income level, ethnic grouping, or parents' political attitude.
It's not healthy for kids to spend their entire school years only with others of their religion, or race, income level, ethnic grouping, or parents' political attitude.
The Founders NEVER intended for such everyday issues as food assistance, education, or medical care for the average citizen to become federal issues.
But when the federal empire-builders tell local schools what to teach and what to even feed students, the citizen owes it to her child to find the best way to get their child educated.
Leading supporters of private school include Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, who children never once darkened the doors of ANY public school.
Did that wall between public school kids and their daughters stop these Dems from interfering in the most minute details of public school practices? of course not.
Progressive feel that they have invested too much work making teacher organizations part of the Democratic Party to see freedom of choice suddenly rear its frightening head.
Tell you what Dems - call it a CHOICE issue.
Don't you like choice?
But when the federal empire-builders tell local schools what to teach and what to even feed students, the citizen owes it to her child to find the best way to get their child educated.
Leading supporters of private school include Barack and Michelle Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, who children never once darkened the doors of ANY public school.
Did that wall between public school kids and their daughters stop these Dems from interfering in the most minute details of public school practices? of course not.
Progressive feel that they have invested too much work making teacher organizations part of the Democratic Party to see freedom of choice suddenly rear its frightening head.
Tell you what Dems - call it a CHOICE issue.
Don't you like choice?
5
It would have been very difficult for the public schools of DC to manage the security elements of educating these three children. Doing so would also have impinged on the neighborhoods and the safety of other kids.
The founders also NEVER intended for such "every day issues" as an interconnected system of highways to become "federal issues." Why? Because they could not have imagined cars and trucks and a country that was vaster than what they had founded, and much more populous. Are you saying the federal highway system is "empire-building?" Our centrist president IKE would sure disagree with you there, and would be proud as heck at what was accomplished on his watch. The founders DID NOT envision this country as a tomb, frozen in their time. The beauty of our system is their wisdom to allow adaptation. For shame that you and your party lack that vision.
The founders also NEVER intended for such "every day issues" as an interconnected system of highways to become "federal issues." Why? Because they could not have imagined cars and trucks and a country that was vaster than what they had founded, and much more populous. Are you saying the federal highway system is "empire-building?" Our centrist president IKE would sure disagree with you there, and would be proud as heck at what was accomplished on his watch. The founders DID NOT envision this country as a tomb, frozen in their time. The beauty of our system is their wisdom to allow adaptation. For shame that you and your party lack that vision.
4
How much worse would Mississippi's schools be without federal regulation? Education is a national concern because these children are our nation's future.
Betsy wants all our children in Christian schools. She is a true soldier in the evangelical army of God. She should not be making unconstitutional choices about our children's education. She wants to destroy public schools because they teach evolution.
Betsy wants all our children in Christian schools. She is a true soldier in the evangelical army of God. She should not be making unconstitutional choices about our children's education. She wants to destroy public schools because they teach evolution.
1
"The Founders NEVER intended for such everyday issues as food assistance, education, or medical care for the average citizen to become federal issues."
How do you pretend to "know" that, when you weren't there?
How do you pretend to "know" that, when you weren't there?
It is clear the Mr. Leonhardt has drunk the charter school Kool Aid down to the last drop. It is also seems the author could not possibly live in NYC since it is clear from the evidence here that choice inevitably leads to segregation. Not a dollar of government money should be used to support these failed concepts.The insane battles that occur when the DOE tries to redistrict in order to relieve overcrowding in primarily white schools is sickening. As others have pointed out, the only solution is to make sure all public schools have enough quality staff and funding to provide an outstanding education for all. Unfortunately our country's powerful and persistent racial problems make this very unlikely. Courageous white parents must take the lead by coming together in groups and having their children attend primarily minority schools to help to try to break these prejudicial patterns as has occasionally happened in New York City.
4
I don't know much about Betsy DeVos but I do know one of her business supplies charter/private schools. And the author believes we should all just hope she has an open mind about these issues?
You're very naive Mr. Leonhardt.
You're very naive Mr. Leonhardt.
8
Public education is the foundation of our Democracy.
"If a nation wants to be ignorant and free, it wants what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
We need to do a better job teaching critical thinking and rational judgment so our citizens cannot be brainwashed by those who would manipulate them. We also need to brainwash our future citizens about civics such as learning the facts and voting as their greatest responsibility as citizens of our great country. Call it good brainwashing. We need everyone to vote.
"If a nation wants to be ignorant and free, it wants what never was and never will be." Thomas Jefferson
We need to do a better job teaching critical thinking and rational judgment so our citizens cannot be brainwashed by those who would manipulate them. We also need to brainwash our future citizens about civics such as learning the facts and voting as their greatest responsibility as citizens of our great country. Call it good brainwashing. We need everyone to vote.
10
Put Ms. DeVos where she is needed best. In a Christian Sunday school.
9
Improving Education?
Try starting with educating adults to:
- stop starting wars
- defund the military
- reinstitute the military draft
- raise taxes on the rich
- institute national health insurance ( single-payer)
- reduce mass incarceration
- pay people a decent livable wage
- expand jobs in infrastructure (roads, bridges, solar, wind energy, climate change technology)
- increase mass transit systems
- support public education & develop a new societal respect for teachers.
Try starting with educating adults to:
- stop starting wars
- defund the military
- reinstitute the military draft
- raise taxes on the rich
- institute national health insurance ( single-payer)
- reduce mass incarceration
- pay people a decent livable wage
- expand jobs in infrastructure (roads, bridges, solar, wind energy, climate change technology)
- increase mass transit systems
- support public education & develop a new societal respect for teachers.
8
What you're advocating isn't education. It's indoctrination and leftist indoctrination at that.
3
"Leftist indoctrination" is usually indistinguishable from "teaching facts and promoting good policy."
"It's indoctrination and leftist indoctrination at that."
And that is precisely what this country needs, unless you're claiming that "rightist" and "fascist" are not the same thing.
And that is precisely what this country needs, unless you're claiming that "rightist" and "fascist" are not the same thing.
Fifty-some years ago, early in my high school teaching career, a small poster appeared in the teachers' lounge: "Omniscience and infallibility in matters educational increase by the square of the distance of the speaker or writer from students, classrooms, and texts." That statement, more or less, describes the past several decades of what passes for school reform in the U.S.. Seeming to be more educated than teachers and most other citizens is part of the Great American Self-Esteem Syndrome (GASES).
Each public school should be chartered to its faculty members with the task and funds to make its mission as effective as possible for every student. Teachers already compete daily with society's materialism and craving for ceaseless entertainment, not to mention family and neighborhood conditions - they know their competition and what's needed. They are professionals who are denied professional status. That denial prevents authentic reform.
Each public school should be chartered to its faculty members with the task and funds to make its mission as effective as possible for every student. Teachers already compete daily with society's materialism and craving for ceaseless entertainment, not to mention family and neighborhood conditions - they know their competition and what's needed. They are professionals who are denied professional status. That denial prevents authentic reform.
7
"Omniscience and infallibility in matters educational increase by the square of the distance of the speaker or writer from students, classrooms, and texts."
Great quote. It almost certainly went over the heads of most of the people who need to learn from it.
Great quote. It almost certainly went over the heads of most of the people who need to learn from it.
3
Very interesting article. Unfortunately, I only have a few minutes to look at the actual study and only read the executive summary. I have these questions to those who know more than me and have an open mind.
1Is one year ( the first year)enough of a time for evaluation. Seems like transition could impact a kid.
2. Other than the math scores (again only first year), all other outcomes were positive, and one statistically so.
3. IS Washington DC a normal market that we should make nationwide decisions on? For some reason, I would not think it typical.
Thank you for the interesting article as we try to better understand how to care for our children's education and try to look at the Whole.
1Is one year ( the first year)enough of a time for evaluation. Seems like transition could impact a kid.
2. Other than the math scores (again only first year), all other outcomes were positive, and one statistically so.
3. IS Washington DC a normal market that we should make nationwide decisions on? For some reason, I would not think it typical.
Thank you for the interesting article as we try to better understand how to care for our children's education and try to look at the Whole.
2
The majority of the research on public vs private schools supports the study. Publics usually see better results with similar students. The reason so many people think private schools are better when the reverse is usually true is because the two models rarely have similar students, and private school students are the sort who'll generally do better wherever they go, even with slightly worse instruction.
So vouchers driving achievement down would be what any knowledgeable person would expect. But very few people are knowledgeable about education issues.
So vouchers driving achievement down would be what any knowledgeable person would expect. But very few people are knowledgeable about education issues.
3
Both my parents taught elementary school; my father in the NYC system in Bedford Stuyvesant and my mother on Long Island. My wife taught high school math in an inner city neighborhood in Chicago.
My wife's experience with private (Chicago Catholic Parochial) schools is based on students who failed 8th grade math in public school and took the subject over the summer and passed at their local Catholic school. These students continued to fail at the freshman high school level because their parochial school course covered less material at a lower level than the public school course did. Do private schools have to adhere to the same or better curricula as public schools? If not, then any voucher money is being expended on an inferior education. My wife has a Masters Degree in Mathematics: what are the teacher qualifications for charter and parochial schools?
I worked for IBM for over 30 years and a number of my co-workers were former high school teachers. The primary reason for leaving the teaching profession and going to IBM was simple: "I couldn't afford to send my children to college on a teacher's salary". Higher salaries should attract better and more dedicated men and women to become and remain as teachers.
My parents, wife and most teachers would agree that a key to success in school is parental involvement. It is likely that involved parents who take advantage of school choice options are also involved at home.
My wife's experience with private (Chicago Catholic Parochial) schools is based on students who failed 8th grade math in public school and took the subject over the summer and passed at their local Catholic school. These students continued to fail at the freshman high school level because their parochial school course covered less material at a lower level than the public school course did. Do private schools have to adhere to the same or better curricula as public schools? If not, then any voucher money is being expended on an inferior education. My wife has a Masters Degree in Mathematics: what are the teacher qualifications for charter and parochial schools?
I worked for IBM for over 30 years and a number of my co-workers were former high school teachers. The primary reason for leaving the teaching profession and going to IBM was simple: "I couldn't afford to send my children to college on a teacher's salary". Higher salaries should attract better and more dedicated men and women to become and remain as teachers.
My parents, wife and most teachers would agree that a key to success in school is parental involvement. It is likely that involved parents who take advantage of school choice options are also involved at home.
7
All private schools are different based on the curriculum rigor. My son goes to a private school and I oversee his progress in math and science. He is now taking (it is 10th grade) precalc honors and chem honors. Right now they have finished derivatives and basic optimization in precalc and starting basic differential equations and simple integration. In chem I have checked the latest HW and it was from the book used to teach 3rd year college chem. Obviously, other kids in the same school can choose to be in less "rigorous" classes. It is all about your kid's drive and your support of this drive.
It is true that there are some charter schools that have caring teachers who do a wonderful job with a majority of students. But the charter system is a major step toward the privatization of the country's schools which have been--until now--at the very foundation of our democracy.
Whereas, in the (actual) public sector, parents can have a say in how the school operates by attending school board meetings and voting for the members of those boards; at a charter school, the only vote a parent gets is the kind they can do with their feet, and often that is a very, very limited, difficult, and time-consuming option (all while whatever was the difficulty for the child--who has very little power in the equation--continues). (Don't like one of the school's policies or how they treat your children, for example? You can leave...)
Whereas, in the (actual) public sector, parents can have a say in how the school operates by attending school board meetings and voting for the members of those boards; at a charter school, the only vote a parent gets is the kind they can do with their feet, and often that is a very, very limited, difficult, and time-consuming option (all while whatever was the difficulty for the child--who has very little power in the equation--continues). (Don't like one of the school's policies or how they treat your children, for example? You can leave...)
8
In Florida, charter schools under-perform traditional public schools.
See http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/charters-underperform-public-sch...
From Prof. Smith's op-ed:
• When the poverty and minority characteristics of the student population are controlled, the average charter school performs significantly lower than the average traditional public school by a little more than 5 percent. This has major public policy implications.
• Across all schools — traditional and charter — as the percentage of students qualifying for a free or reduced price lunch increases, school scores decrease. That by itself is not surprising.
• But what might be surprising is this: As the percent of minorities increases, the school scores increase — if poverty is controlled for. This also has major policy implications. These results mean the state should be focusing performance goals on socioeconomic status, not race or ethnicity.
I wonder if Ms. DeVos is familiar with this study.
No, really, I'm not joking, just asking.
See http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/charters-underperform-public-sch...
From Prof. Smith's op-ed:
• When the poverty and minority characteristics of the student population are controlled, the average charter school performs significantly lower than the average traditional public school by a little more than 5 percent. This has major public policy implications.
• Across all schools — traditional and charter — as the percentage of students qualifying for a free or reduced price lunch increases, school scores decrease. That by itself is not surprising.
• But what might be surprising is this: As the percent of minorities increases, the school scores increase — if poverty is controlled for. This also has major policy implications. These results mean the state should be focusing performance goals on socioeconomic status, not race or ethnicity.
I wonder if Ms. DeVos is familiar with this study.
No, really, I'm not joking, just asking.
8
The free market determines one's socio-economic status as a natural indicator of the relative value of one's labor. Tampering with that is inappropriate in a capitalist economy.
The surest way to be successful in our economy is to be born to wealthy parents. You can then pat yourself on the back for being a self-made man.
Working hard can help, but it's nowhere near as reliable.
Working hard can help, but it's nowhere near as reliable.
"Natural" like evolution? Survive or perish? If only the middle class and the poor had the control over their lives that those like Donald Trump who were born into a wealthy family.
I try to show my children every day how lucky they are. I am an immigrant with poor, uneducated parents who did not speak English. I had great teachers and a great education in the inner city. In the 70's they were "allowing more women into college, I got federal affordable student loans and grants and worked very hard. I received a B.A. from a very good university and taught high school English. I think I made a difference in my students' lives and contribute to society because I got those "breaks" from the government.
It is not and never was a level playing field. The deck is heavily stacked by, for and about the !%.
A living wage is a joke. Ask Walmart while we cover their employees with food stamps, Medicaid and welfare while they make billions in PROFIT every quarter. The unions are being destroyed.
The American Dream is dead. Will you be ready for the next American Revolution?
I try to show my children every day how lucky they are. I am an immigrant with poor, uneducated parents who did not speak English. I had great teachers and a great education in the inner city. In the 70's they were "allowing more women into college, I got federal affordable student loans and grants and worked very hard. I received a B.A. from a very good university and taught high school English. I think I made a difference in my students' lives and contribute to society because I got those "breaks" from the government.
It is not and never was a level playing field. The deck is heavily stacked by, for and about the !%.
A living wage is a joke. Ask Walmart while we cover their employees with food stamps, Medicaid and welfare while they make billions in PROFIT every quarter. The unions are being destroyed.
The American Dream is dead. Will you be ready for the next American Revolution?
I believe in good public schools. But when 2 good schools failed my kids, I moved them to a private Montessori Elementary where they soon thrived. They are in a multi age group class with kids from 1st-3rd grade. The abilities of the kids in the class range from kids who are behind the curve, various places "on the spectrum of autism", to very sharp and doing class work ahead of grade. Each child gets their own individual plan. That plan evolves as the kid evolves. All aspects of academic and psycho social development are addressed. There is one teacher and one aid for 24 kids. If this school can do it then so can others. It's not about vouchers or charters. It's about freeing our teachers to teach, giving them the resources, (fyi this is not a "rich" school facilities are modest), giving children the time to be different and develop on their own path, and on not trying to measure success with tests that the politicians can wave around and which in fact have little meaning.
4
First, there is no question whether DeVos is an ideologue committed to prior beliefs regardless of facts or someone who has an open mind. She is an ideologue. Let's not pretend that a door is open that has been slammed shut long ago.
Second, choice also does not work and let me tell you why. Simply put, not all kinds in a particular city or district can fit into a single school. If a city has one high-performing, safe school on one end of town and an unsafe, low-performing school on the other end, many kids will still be forced into the low-performing school despite an overwhelming number of applications to attend the high-performing school.
The focus on improving schools needs to go much deeper than the schools themselves. I know of low-performing schools with amazing, highly performing teachers who cannot get through to kids who don't care. These kids don't care because they are over-tired, underfed, unsettled in their home lives, or their parents don't care. Those are the issues that need to be fixed. Some kids cannot be saved because their parents don't value education and would rather pray for something to improve. These are tough problems but choice--nor vouchers--are the answer.
Second, choice also does not work and let me tell you why. Simply put, not all kinds in a particular city or district can fit into a single school. If a city has one high-performing, safe school on one end of town and an unsafe, low-performing school on the other end, many kids will still be forced into the low-performing school despite an overwhelming number of applications to attend the high-performing school.
The focus on improving schools needs to go much deeper than the schools themselves. I know of low-performing schools with amazing, highly performing teachers who cannot get through to kids who don't care. These kids don't care because they are over-tired, underfed, unsettled in their home lives, or their parents don't care. Those are the issues that need to be fixed. Some kids cannot be saved because their parents don't value education and would rather pray for something to improve. These are tough problems but choice--nor vouchers--are the answer.
6
"Last week, the Education Department, which she runs, released a careful study of the District of Columbia’s use of school vouchers"
A careful study that had a predetermined outcome? Peabody coal has released a careful study on solar electric power generation...
A careful study that had a predetermined outcome? Peabody coal has released a careful study on solar electric power generation...
3
The study found that vouchers drove students' achievement DOWN. It's the opposite of what DeVos believes (because the study is actually describing reality).
3
Ms Devos's Market solution (AKA choice) will have the children of the wealthy in schools on top of the hills and the rest in flood zones.
7
Those hilltop schools would be owned by corporations whose only concern would be the profit they make. The product they produce would be inadequately educated students, and teachers mere cogs in the machinery. Creativity, critical thinking and individualized education would be tossed.
I know that David Leonhardt has a good heart but he is simply not thinking through what he is saying. I hope he will read the comments on his articles and give them serious thought. Every dollar spent on charter or any other kind of alternative school is diverted from the very kids most in need of an education to escape the grip of poverty.
It is not the top 10 or 20 or even 50 percent of the families we need most to be concerned about but all those kids who receive zero parental help with their education. Who stands up for them if we as a society do not? The price to be paid will only escalate as we continue down this path, Mr. Leonhardt. Please think about it.
It is not the top 10 or 20 or even 50 percent of the families we need most to be concerned about but all those kids who receive zero parental help with their education. Who stands up for them if we as a society do not? The price to be paid will only escalate as we continue down this path, Mr. Leonhardt. Please think about it.
72
Jim, I think you're mistaken. In our district, all most the entire system is made of charters and the district is quite poor. The charters created competition and there are no longer geographic boundaries that limit where kids can go to school. It's not a rich/poor people issue. Good schools prevail. Bad ones get their licenses taken away. Test scores have improved and my sense is that the kids and parents are happier. On the other hand, vouchers are a joke. If you want to send your kids to religious schools, pay for it. If you are underprivileged but want to send you kid to a private school, most private schools offer scholarships. Vouchers...no way no how.
22
Don 't make the Logical Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. What may be working well in your particular district says NOTHING about what is happening anywhere else, where different standards & values are applied by people with much different priorities.
2
In addition to bringing all schools up to a common standard at least, we must also recognize the responsibility of schools, communities, social leaders, NGOs, & government to provide support for the parent(s) in poor and poorly performing schools. In many schools, the adults teach the students that there is something wrong with striving for good grades, as if their children's failures justify their own school failures. Children (& their parents) should learn from every institution in society that by far the best way to rise in this society is through valuing education & working hard at acquiring it. It is as important to reach and educate those in the community already too old for school how important education is for their children. A Nigerian friend with double masters' degrees and a VP job with AT&T, who was raised & schooled in the South Bronx, talked with me about how much resistance and outright anger & hatred he had to overcome, not only from the other children in the neighborhood, but the entire population for doing well in school. It was equated to "acting white," he said & he was constantly bullied & called an "Oreo." Few kids can stand up to this pressure. Only the fact that he & his parents were born abroad, outside the "culture of failure," gave him an understanding of the importance of education in opening up opportunities for success in adult life. An entire culture has been allowed - even encouraged - to grow up in poor neighborhoods that MUST be addressed.
1. In Ohio, the charter schools have been a center of scandal and utter failure. There is a pattern of charter school profiteers trying to make a quick buck by over-selling and under-delivering, in some cases going so far as to not even open a school! And the state government has recently gotten in trouble for altering school ratings to favor charter schools over public schools for charter schools that just so happened to fund the governor's campaign.
2. Almost everybody leading the charge to "reform" the public schools has never taught a class and holds no degrees in education. Many of them never attended a public school. How anybody can bill themselves as an expert in what works in education without ever teaching is beyond me.
3. The more you dig into what the so-called reformers want to do, the more you see the following motivations: (a) destroying the public teachers' unions by replacing unionized public school teaching positions with non-unionized charter teaching positions, (b) adding religious components to curriculum or excluding subjects that are deemed offensive for religious reasons like evolution, and (c) creating opportunities for profiteering on the public nickel.
4. There's a pervasive myth that public school teachers aren't innovative. Mine certainly were, and the friends of mine who teach would innovate if were allowed to by the very same people extolling the innovation of charter schools.
2. Almost everybody leading the charge to "reform" the public schools has never taught a class and holds no degrees in education. Many of them never attended a public school. How anybody can bill themselves as an expert in what works in education without ever teaching is beyond me.
3. The more you dig into what the so-called reformers want to do, the more you see the following motivations: (a) destroying the public teachers' unions by replacing unionized public school teaching positions with non-unionized charter teaching positions, (b) adding religious components to curriculum or excluding subjects that are deemed offensive for religious reasons like evolution, and (c) creating opportunities for profiteering on the public nickel.
4. There's a pervasive myth that public school teachers aren't innovative. Mine certainly were, and the friends of mine who teach would innovate if were allowed to by the very same people extolling the innovation of charter schools.
11
To quote the last-most abysmal president: Is our children learning? We have seen the steady dumbing down of our country, the direct result of underfunding and undermining public schools. Beyond my personal heartbreak is this Cassandra-like warning (and I hope anyone born after 1980 and educated in a public school understands that reference): This signals the downward slide of civilization.
4
Elizabeth, it's not the downward slide of civilization-- it is the end of America as a successful country. Other countries will rise to prominence in all the ways we once did-- innovation, research, literacy, civic engagement-- and they will ultimately surge past us. It is already happening. We will be a third world country soon.
2
Many charter schools are run by corporations, operating for profit, at tax payer's cost. In particular, the Turkish Imam considered to be a coup promoter by the increasingly dictatorial Turkish president, operates a large company that contracts to run charter schools throughout the U.S.
Many charter schools also produce the results they brag about despite choosing their students by lottery by having very high rates of disciplinary expulsion, based mainly not on behavioral misdeeds, but by poor academic performance. In other words, those who are performingly poorly academically are more likely to be dismissed for behavioral problems than are those who perform well academically.
Many charter schools also produce the results they brag about despite choosing their students by lottery by having very high rates of disciplinary expulsion, based mainly not on behavioral misdeeds, but by poor academic performance. In other words, those who are performingly poorly academically are more likely to be dismissed for behavioral problems than are those who perform well academically.
6
I live in the state of Ohio, where Mr. Leonhardt's description of "rigorous evaluation and oversight" of charters is laughably tragic. Also, his statement charters "are open to all comers" is patently disengenuous to all who weren't educated within the prep school/Ivy League track. (Mr. Leonhardt is, I believe, Horace Mann followed by Yale.)
Charter schools require that a parent be dissatisfied with her child's education, is aware of alternatives, is equipped to rank those alternatives, chose the best one, sign up her child, and then sustain intensive involvement for the next 12 - 15 years. Of course charters select the best students. They do that simply by selecting the best parents.
Charter schools require that a parent be dissatisfied with her child's education, is aware of alternatives, is equipped to rank those alternatives, chose the best one, sign up her child, and then sustain intensive involvement for the next 12 - 15 years. Of course charters select the best students. They do that simply by selecting the best parents.
9
I applaud that Mr. Leonhardt has the ability to look past ideology and presumptions and focus on the data. He says that people like Secretary DeVos can do the same.
This is naive. People like Trump, Ms. DeVos possess a trait common to (many, not all) conservative Republicans - they are able to convince themselves that they are doing good by doing well.
Follow the money. As other commenters note, Ms. DeVos and her family is heavily invested in the education business, i.e., for profit.
Second, let's face it. Many wealthy conservatives send their kids to private schools. They absolutely resent the fact that their tax dollars go to educate other people's kids in public schools. Hence vouchers.
As Upton Sinclair noted, you can't make a woman (or a man) understand what works in education when she has million dollar bets on an education theory that requires her not to understand. Or something.
This is naive. People like Trump, Ms. DeVos possess a trait common to (many, not all) conservative Republicans - they are able to convince themselves that they are doing good by doing well.
Follow the money. As other commenters note, Ms. DeVos and her family is heavily invested in the education business, i.e., for profit.
Second, let's face it. Many wealthy conservatives send their kids to private schools. They absolutely resent the fact that their tax dollars go to educate other people's kids in public schools. Hence vouchers.
As Upton Sinclair noted, you can't make a woman (or a man) understand what works in education when she has million dollar bets on an education theory that requires her not to understand. Or something.
4
The notion of choice could be valuable within the public school system. If public schools were not all the same, but specialized in a variety of ways, parents could choose a school to fit their children's talents. And schools could choose their faculty to fit their focus.
But for the main part, neither charter schools nor vouchers are aimed at diversifying educational choice to actualize different student capacities. They are instead a vehicle for avoiding improvement of the public schools by siphoning off the easily educated, and leaving the difficult for the public system. They are also a vehicle for programming students instead of educating them to increase the constituency for certain political/religious agendas.
But for the main part, neither charter schools nor vouchers are aimed at diversifying educational choice to actualize different student capacities. They are instead a vehicle for avoiding improvement of the public schools by siphoning off the easily educated, and leaving the difficult for the public system. They are also a vehicle for programming students instead of educating them to increase the constituency for certain political/religious agendas.
10
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. And the schools’ benefits extend beyond test scores to more meaningful metrics, like college graduation."
This is a terrible lie that is causing devastating harm to students and teachers. Charters are NOT open to all comers. They cherry pick and they only those who adapt to their system. Despite their claims to the contrary, the process of getting into a charter alone guarantees a higher achieving student body from the start. Many charter schools do not provide services for special needs students, particularly the most intellectually limited. Charters are not susceptible to the same amount of population mobility either.
Until charters are required to play by the same rules as traditional publics, they cannot be compared. Nor should voucher school systems be compared to them as it is similar to comparing Catholic Colleges to the Public Ivys.
This is a terrible lie that is causing devastating harm to students and teachers. Charters are NOT open to all comers. They cherry pick and they only those who adapt to their system. Despite their claims to the contrary, the process of getting into a charter alone guarantees a higher achieving student body from the start. Many charter schools do not provide services for special needs students, particularly the most intellectually limited. Charters are not susceptible to the same amount of population mobility either.
Until charters are required to play by the same rules as traditional publics, they cannot be compared. Nor should voucher school systems be compared to them as it is similar to comparing Catholic Colleges to the Public Ivys.
6
Here's the deal with charters in Massachusetts:
1. SAT and AP scores are horrible according to the MA Dept. of Education - worse than the vast majority of public high schools, even urban ones.
2. Teachers lack credentials and have exceptionally high turnover.
3. Curricular offerings are paltry. Spanish is often the only language offered - most public schools have at least 4 choices.
4. Extracurricular offerings are dreadful - very little music or art.
For these reasons and many others, middle class and affluent MA parents would never consider charters, but they are considered good enough for the black and brown poor children who attend them. Shameful.
1. SAT and AP scores are horrible according to the MA Dept. of Education - worse than the vast majority of public high schools, even urban ones.
2. Teachers lack credentials and have exceptionally high turnover.
3. Curricular offerings are paltry. Spanish is often the only language offered - most public schools have at least 4 choices.
4. Extracurricular offerings are dreadful - very little music or art.
For these reasons and many others, middle class and affluent MA parents would never consider charters, but they are considered good enough for the black and brown poor children who attend them. Shameful.
13
If vouchers let poor kids get into those nice private schools in places like upper Manhattan, I am not surprised vouchers don't work according to study after study by well-off researchers. Everyone will support charters now.
I think charter schools can be good, just as "traditional" schools can be good. Perhaps one of the reasons some charter schools excel has to do with the necessary parent involvement in both developing the concept and supporting their children through the schools. Also, the key to effective learning hinges on effective teaching. In fact, Richard Elmore's research says there is more difference between two teachers in the same school as between schools. The key to improving education is helping educators to continually improve, whether they work at charter schools or "traditional" schools (whatever that is.)
Why is it so much clearer that for-profit colleges that rely on government financed loans for students who rarely do well is a bad idea but charter schools that rely on vouchers and have poor results for their students are good?
5
We can have choice without charters. Why not? Charters discriminate among children, and create terrible working conditions for teachers. The teachers who work in charters have no union protection. Teachers' unions were created to correct abuses in the treatment of teachers that affected everyone, including school children. Must we go back and start the Twentieth Century over again?
3
Why do teachers need "protections" that the rest of the working world do without? Before you use the tired canard about academic freedom, realize that curricula are dictated by principals, districts, states and the US government whereby the individual classroom teacher has virtually no control over the material or it's presentation.
It's hardly a bad thing that there are rules that say you can fire a bad teacher but not a good one. Kids, society, and good teachers all benefit from that.
Complaining that teachers shouldn't have that rule because you don't puts you on the level of a five year old whining "It's not fair!" A smarter person would be asking why he doesn't have it.
Complaining that teachers shouldn't have that rule because you don't puts you on the level of a five year old whining "It's not fair!" A smarter person would be asking why he doesn't have it.
I am smart enough to know that such "protections" are ruinous to business and therefore inappropriate unless one sees their continued employment to be a right and associated benefits to be an entitlement. In a free market, we each receive compensation appropriate to the value of our labor.
Mr. Leonhardt uses an argument against vouchers that would seem to also indict needs-based financial aid for colleges.
He writes, "Conventional wisdom usually defines a good school as one attended by high-achieving students, which is easy to measure. But that’s akin to concluding that all of LeBron James’s coaches have been geniuses."
Isn't that the same reasoning people use for sending their kids to Harvard and Yale? To Mr. Leonhardt, the fact that high-achieving students attend those schools actually says nothing about the effectiveness of the schools; thus, he reasons, giving parents of poor kids money to send their kids there is a waste.
I wonder how Mr. Leonhardt paid for his education?
He writes, "Conventional wisdom usually defines a good school as one attended by high-achieving students, which is easy to measure. But that’s akin to concluding that all of LeBron James’s coaches have been geniuses."
Isn't that the same reasoning people use for sending their kids to Harvard and Yale? To Mr. Leonhardt, the fact that high-achieving students attend those schools actually says nothing about the effectiveness of the schools; thus, he reasons, giving parents of poor kids money to send their kids there is a waste.
I wonder how Mr. Leonhardt paid for his education?
Actually, for anyone to attend the high dollar private schools is, for the most part, a waste. Sure, the large majority at Harvard and Stanford get a good education, far better than the average person gets. But that is true at UC Berkeley, UT Austin, University of Michigan, University of Washington, UCLA ........ . The list goes on. And most private, high dollar schools do not approach Harvard or Stanford in quality, nor do they approach UT Austin, UC Berkeley, and so on. They are more akin to a Stephen F. Austin or SW Missouri State. The money spent to attend such schools is wasted.
1
That really isn't for you to decide for another person, is it? It's just one man's opinion.
1
Based on what standard? If the only reason to attend a school - college or lower levels - is to become a more productive human resource for generating GDP growth, then I guess your ananlysis is correct.
But if you believe in educating the whole person, intellectually, creatively, socially, spiritually, morally, etc., then many of these private schools you argue against might in fact be delivering tremendous value to those who have chosen them.
I grew up in catholic school, while my wife attended large suburban public schools. I somewhat envy her experience in a larger more diverse and dynamic classroom environment, 5A football teams, and state of the art facilities. She wishes she had received the benefit of my quieter, more intellectually-focused, values-based experience, with centuries old traditions and weekly catholic mass.
When our kids reached school age, we both agreed to pinch the pennies necessary to afford PreK-12 catholic education for them. We've never regretted it.
Our choice wasn't just about SAT scores and college acceptance letters, but about helping our children become the people God intends them to be: smart, healthy, happy, and holy.
Why shouldn't public financial aid be made available for poor families wanting to make that same choice for their young children, too.
But if you believe in educating the whole person, intellectually, creatively, socially, spiritually, morally, etc., then many of these private schools you argue against might in fact be delivering tremendous value to those who have chosen them.
I grew up in catholic school, while my wife attended large suburban public schools. I somewhat envy her experience in a larger more diverse and dynamic classroom environment, 5A football teams, and state of the art facilities. She wishes she had received the benefit of my quieter, more intellectually-focused, values-based experience, with centuries old traditions and weekly catholic mass.
When our kids reached school age, we both agreed to pinch the pennies necessary to afford PreK-12 catholic education for them. We've never regretted it.
Our choice wasn't just about SAT scores and college acceptance letters, but about helping our children become the people God intends them to be: smart, healthy, happy, and holy.
Why shouldn't public financial aid be made available for poor families wanting to make that same choice for their young children, too.
Many public school districts in Massachusetts offer school choice that is NOT the same as a charter school. Kids in one town can ask to go to a school in another town, and if that school is able to accomodate them, then they can go. If that kind of school choice were expanded (especially by offering transportation to the kids, which is not part of the current deal) then public schools could compete with one another directly and of course publicly funded charter schools also could continue to compete. For-profit schools are just like for-profit hospitals and for-profit prisons - a really BAD idea!
3
For six years I was member of the board of a charter school in Massachusetts. The school had significant oversight by the state board of education. The students all took the state standardized test and performed extremely well provided a basis of comparison between the school and its non-charter counterparts as well as a basis for determining own performance against its past. By almost any measure this school was a highly performing school with great teachers and administration.
That being said one of the main advantages of the is that the school was a school of choice. That is that each student or his or her parents had to choose go attend this school. Each student or their family was highly motivated and committed. The school could not and did not choose students but students did have to choose the school. That is a significant advantage over non-charter public schools. Charter schools can and should be held to a higher standard. A non-performing charter school with this advantage should be put on notice to correct that situation or, potentially, be closed.
That being said one of the main advantages of the is that the school was a school of choice. That is that each student or his or her parents had to choose go attend this school. Each student or their family was highly motivated and committed. The school could not and did not choose students but students did have to choose the school. That is a significant advantage over non-charter public schools. Charter schools can and should be held to a higher standard. A non-performing charter school with this advantage should be put on notice to correct that situation or, potentially, be closed.
David - your charter school was overseen by the MA DOE, but it lacked any community oversight. DOE (as you well know) is only interested in MCAS/PARCC scores. Community interests are often broader and deeper. Recently I attended board meetings at two charters in MA, and I was stunned by what I heard and saw about the curriculum and the governance of the schools. There is a reason why charters are attended by low-information families. It is pitiful.
3
Anybody who claims to have been involved with a charter that insists they're well overseen and can't pick and choose students has no credibility.
3
It's striking that so many of the commenters dismiss any possible argument for charter schools. They apparently believe the evidence is rigged in every single success story.
Leonhardt provides links to a bunch of comprehensive results studies which might make interesting reading (for anyone with an open mind).
Leonhardt provides links to a bunch of comprehensive results studies which might make interesting reading (for anyone with an open mind).
2
I doubt the evidence is rigged in every single success stories. I know it's rigged in most of them. Charters are inherently a worse model than public schools; that doesn't mean that every charter is bad, but it does mean we'd be better off without charters.
2
Well, if the purpose of charters is a protected space for experiment and innovation then that space necessarily has to be limited, but hard to understand how we'd be better off without it as you assert.
We'd be better off because charters are, in practice, neither experimental nor limited. There's nothing in the establishment of charters that absolutely prohibits them from being good schools, so they can be. But there's nothing that encourages them to be good, and lots that encourages them to be bad. Most of them are. So we'd be better off without them, given that we'd lose a few good schools and a lot of bad ones.
Charter Schools can be good; however, for profit charter schools are not always the way to go either. Check out what happened in Milwaukee, WI over spring break, a for profit charter school closed. They took the technology, left 650 students without teachers and administrators. Now the Milwaukee Public Schools have to come up with a million, to cover these costs. The school was called Danial Webster. Check it out.
2
I think you can make the case against Vouchers without the comparison to Charters. I see the intent, which I agree with, of decoupling in our minds Vouchers and Charters. They are different animals and do not compare favorably. Point made. So, if you are a liberal and you rail against both, stop doing that. Vouchers are far worse. Please do a follow up that compares Charters and Public Schools on both economic and assessment outcomes. That Charters do better in impoverished neighborhoods, as implied - and if indeed it is an accurate assessment - it needs to be repeated as well as supporting evidence. In urban areas public schools in impoverished neighborhoods are underfunded typically. Charters often represent another choice for those families who can "get in". But the Charters often compete for meager resources in these areas, they often get a bit more than their fair share and have an initial ability to raise more "outside" funding. They represent a false solution unless they outperform their public school counterparts. Except, that is, as a business plan that gets similar results with less money. I don't blame the charters for their high intentions, for trying to provide another choice, and for trying to bring in more resources. But this choice should not diminish the resources or the perceptions or importance of public schools. Which they often do. Choice does not replace money. But isn't that often the intention? Is that enough?
Other writers have pointed out the advantages given to charter schools - they are exempted from many of the expensive requirements regular public schools face, for instance: transportation, special education, and so forth. They can also "counsel out" students whom they find difficult to educate, making them, again, the problem the regular school has to face.
One would expect, given these advantages, that charter schools would outperform regular schools across the board. Studies consistently show, however, that this is not the case. A few charters do better. Quite a few do worse. Most do about the same. Moreover, those that DO excel spend dramatically more per pupil than other charters do. It's almost as though, yes, fully funding education produces results. Now, how could we test that hypothesis? Hmm.
One would expect, given these advantages, that charter schools would outperform regular schools across the board. Studies consistently show, however, that this is not the case. A few charters do better. Quite a few do worse. Most do about the same. Moreover, those that DO excel spend dramatically more per pupil than other charters do. It's almost as though, yes, fully funding education produces results. Now, how could we test that hypothesis? Hmm.
3
Local control is a nearly sacred concept in American public education, and it can be a good thing in communities where the parents are educated and understand what their children need to know to be successful. But what about a community that is not only full of uneducated people but controlled by those who like the fact that the most of their fellow residents are uneducated, because it makes them less likely to question authority?
Whenever a school board member or parent says "Our kids don't need to know that stuff," whether "that stuff" is advanced math, foreign languages, evolution, sex education, or a non-whitewashed form of American history, we are seeing the downside of local control.
I'm not one for micromanaging--I've heard too many public school teachers who feel stifled by micromanaging administrators. However, states should establish standards of what every student, whether in regular public school or a charter, should know in each subject by the end of each grade and then leave it up to the individual teachers to achieve those goals by the means that best suit their teaching styles and the needs and abilities of their students.
Whenever a school board member or parent says "Our kids don't need to know that stuff," whether "that stuff" is advanced math, foreign languages, evolution, sex education, or a non-whitewashed form of American history, we are seeing the downside of local control.
I'm not one for micromanaging--I've heard too many public school teachers who feel stifled by micromanaging administrators. However, states should establish standards of what every student, whether in regular public school or a charter, should know in each subject by the end of each grade and then leave it up to the individual teachers to achieve those goals by the means that best suit their teaching styles and the needs and abilities of their students.
2
Maybe this is old news since the Times ran it last week or maybe Leonhardt doesn't read the Times:
The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers.
The examination of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federally funded voucher program in the country, by the department’s Institute of Education Sciences, found that students who attended a private school through the program performed worse on standardized tests than their public school counterparts who did not use the vouchers.
5
Though I have difficulty accepting the claims regarding either voucher programs or charter schools as viable alternatives to regular public schools, which have been the basis for advancement out of poverty for so many, I also see the flaw in this study. It is quite possible that students who had historically done poorly in public schools were more likely to take the vouchers and attend private schools (if they could be accepted by the private schools). There have always been private schools that market themselves to parents who have seen their children do poorly in public schools.
This is the study he's talking about.
And Dave, the study compared students who got vouchers to students whose parents applied but didn't get them, so the flaw you're imagining doesn't exist. The voucher schools are just worse than the public schools, which everyone who knows anything about education expected.
And Dave, the study compared students who got vouchers to students whose parents applied but didn't get them, so the flaw you're imagining doesn't exist. The voucher schools are just worse than the public schools, which everyone who knows anything about education expected.
1
Charter schools can not be an end in and of themselves. They are intended to be a place to experiment with new ideas in education where results can be measured and the best approaches moved into the mainstream. If they become just a "better alternative" to the mainstream public system then we are just worsening the divide between the lucky few and the masses.
Therefore charter school success can not be measured by the accomplishments of their students, but rather on what innovations from the charters have successfully been deployed in the greater public school system.
Therefore charter school success can not be measured by the accomplishments of their students, but rather on what innovations from the charters have successfully been deployed in the greater public school system.
5
Charters' main "innovation" is refusing hard-to-teach kids so as to create the illusion of success.
Public schools are not allowed to do the same.
Public schools are not allowed to do the same.
42
It's this type of open minded attitude that is causing charters to become ever more popular. There are studies showing many parents are more satisfied at the charter schools than the traditional public school alternatives. It's the same child at both schools, but getting a better education at the charter school. Of course, why should the traditional public schools face this reality when it's easier to push the party line that charters are skimming the top?
Your comment is incorrect. Please reread the article. Charter schools are not private. They are a part of the public school system and, as such, are required to take all comers. The recently released list of top performing high schools in the nation was led by Basis Scottsdale in Arizona, well-known charter.
Sadly, the author misrepresents the current status of charter schools. The charter schools with the best student results are not necessarily great schools. They are not subject to rigorous accountability...certainly not by the federal government and not by most states. Many of the supposedly "best" charters, i.e. the BASIS chain of charters in Arizona and the Success Academies in NYC cherrypick their students and expel or counsel out those who cannot keep up. When the NY Times revealed how Success Academies punished disabled students for their disabilities by suspending more than the legal limit for public schools the Obama Administration did absolutely nothing about it. BASIS schools also cherrypick their students and "counsel out" those students who cannot keep up.
These schools are public only in one way...they operate with public money. Many charter supporters are unaware of two facts: the profit taken by charter operators far exceeds the money neighborhood public schools spend on administration, and secondly, charter schools are largely responsible for the resegregation of public schools in America. It is fatuous for advocates of neighborhood schools tightening their budgets to excuse far worse behavior by these charters. Driving by any BASIS charter schools in places like Tucson where Hispanics are a large percentage of the population you will see very few brown faces. Meanwhile the neighborhood schools are much more representative of the area's demographics.
These schools are public only in one way...they operate with public money. Many charter supporters are unaware of two facts: the profit taken by charter operators far exceeds the money neighborhood public schools spend on administration, and secondly, charter schools are largely responsible for the resegregation of public schools in America. It is fatuous for advocates of neighborhood schools tightening their budgets to excuse far worse behavior by these charters. Driving by any BASIS charter schools in places like Tucson where Hispanics are a large percentage of the population you will see very few brown faces. Meanwhile the neighborhood schools are much more representative of the area's demographics.
7
Betsy has never attended a public school or college. She has never been a teacher. My guess is that she doesn't even know what a P.T.A. is. She is incapable of understanding the concept of "open mind" as it pertains to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. She believes this country was, is, and should remain a 'Christian' country. She fits right in with POTUS who also has no related experience, job history, or grasp of reality. A learning curve is a fantasy in both cases.
11
I always get a kick out of pro charter articles like this one that mention education researchers that no one heard of but fail to mention an educational researcher that everyone heard of......Diane Ravitch.
7
It's 2017. If reality doesn't conform with the narrative you'd like to push, just find some "alternative facts."
1
We need to go back to the progressive taxes of the Eisenhower era.
Imagine Betsy DeVos without enough money to turn America into a theocracy of her own personal design.
This is insanty.
Imagine Betsy DeVos without enough money to turn America into a theocracy of her own personal design.
This is insanty.
7
As with gun violence, the best way to deal with inconvenient research results is to de-fund, censor or prohibit it outright. That way any policy, no matter how obtusely unfounded, can rule the roost.
Here in America we have established an kakistocracy of malevolent dunces who can't talk, can't think, can't legislate and can't execute despite possessing all the levers of federal power.
Then these pathetic cretins have the gall to boast about their "accomplishments."
Here in America we have established an kakistocracy of malevolent dunces who can't talk, can't think, can't legislate and can't execute despite possessing all the levers of federal power.
Then these pathetic cretins have the gall to boast about their "accomplishments."
4
A very unscientific article with all kinds of qualified and vague statements. One cannot analyze a complex problem like this unless one does some intense study.
There must be enough data but that is not adequately presented here.
And DeVos is a rather inadequate person to quote. So I urge no one to put too much thought into this article.
The NYTimes has hired a conservative to try to tell us about climate change and he has little understanding of probability theory let alone climate science.
Just like this article, these critical subjects are too important to be left to casual examination and amateurs.
What is the Times up to?
There must be enough data but that is not adequately presented here.
And DeVos is a rather inadequate person to quote. So I urge no one to put too much thought into this article.
The NYTimes has hired a conservative to try to tell us about climate change and he has little understanding of probability theory let alone climate science.
Just like this article, these critical subjects are too important to be left to casual examination and amateurs.
What is the Times up to?
8
See?
The neoliberals do not want competition from privates. Politicians get big campaign contributions from charter operators to keep the gravy train rolling.
Privates don't have to do state testing, so test companies would lose money if kids had same freedom Obama's kids had to attend testing-free privates.
Can't have that.
Predictably, the NYT is trying to protect the 1%er charter operators.
The neoliberals do not want competition from privates. Politicians get big campaign contributions from charter operators to keep the gravy train rolling.
Privates don't have to do state testing, so test companies would lose money if kids had same freedom Obama's kids had to attend testing-free privates.
Can't have that.
Predictably, the NYT is trying to protect the 1%er charter operators.
2
How do you like him now?
On Betsy DeVoss being open minded, don't place any bets, even a long shot. I am no expert. But I did work as a high school math teacher for 25+ years. Second, I now work on a government survey which collects data on the fiscal side of the public school system. The worst aspect of charters that I can see is their propensity to open and close with reckless abandon. Bottom line these are businesses set up to grift off the public sector. Given the shaky academic results as a macro they have to be viewed as major failure. If one traces the charter school back to its beginning it was an idea of Albert Shanker, the president of the AFT. He felt they could provide a place to incubate ideas with experiments. He never envisioned a system set up to capture regulators and transfer money from the tax payer through the public sector and use children as the medium. It was bad enough with crappy mortgages. Do we really want to view children the same?
9
Re your hope that Trump's secretary of education will become educated: Did you not watch any of her confirmation hearing? Most people would have crammed at least some rudimentary facts into their heads so as not to look like totally ignorant idiots and become the punch line of jokes. Most people have a sense of pride, of shame...
What we are learning is that those who are born into great wealth and now running our democracy-cum-kakocracy have no shame at all. The holocaust didn't happen; Frederick Douglass is still alive; Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War .... Their ignorance knows no shame.
What we are learning is that those who are born into great wealth and now running our democracy-cum-kakocracy have no shame at all. The holocaust didn't happen; Frederick Douglass is still alive; Andrew Jackson was alive during the Civil War .... Their ignorance knows no shame.
9
Would you trust DeVos to care for your children?
5
Not really working here in Detroit. Data shows charters do about the same overall as the Public Schools in Detroit. The educational system is now so fragmented in Detroit that, as charters go in and out of business, children often go to several different elementary, middle, and high schools. DeVos and her out state legislative cronies (who depend on her and her husband's campaign contributions) have waged a coordinated, systematic war on public education in Michigan and Detroit especially that has put public school education in Detroit at death's door and is slowly crumbling other public schools in Michigan. It is motivated principally by hatred for teacher's unions (Gov. Engler declared war on them in the early 90's- a DeVos candidate) and by racial animosity. DeVos is a very dangerous person.
11
Vouchers are an affront to church-state separation. For example, there are some Lutheran synods that will not let women vote on church issues. The Catholic church is still a male dominated hierarchy. And don't get me going on the Mormons. Why should my tax dollars support church schools whose dogma is still rooted in the dark ages? And good luck getting Betsy DeVos to address any of this. She goes right along with the cleave-to-your-man crowd. Meanwhile, public education will lose out to a patchwork system where, as usual, the least among us get the scraps.
4
And at the most extreme, vouchers have the potential to support private schools where the science curriculum is based on a "Biblical world view" which insists that the cosmos was created less than 10,000 years ago.
1
Betsy DeVos is philosophically committed to transferring public funds to private pockets. Education is simply the source of funds.
13
As a retired teacher, I can say that David just doesn't get it. Kids today would rather watch someone taking a math test than take one. Check out what kids watch on their Internet and gaming devices. They watch others playing the games. Charter or Public, the DUMB GOES ON!
2
Betsy DeVos has only one goal, shared by her Blackwater husband, and that is the propagation of the Christian religion. Education, in her mind, is only a means to that end.
6
Translation. Choice might work in cities like Washington, DC for families of means who don't want their kids going to public schools with students of color and lesser means. Charters are our newest form of school apartheid where those with money and access get to separate themselves from their poorer less educated neighbors in urban areas. It's time for us as a society to reaffirm our belief in public education and dedicate our efforts to improving our local schools instead of building more walls between the haves and have nots. If you want to live the perks of living in an urban area than invest your time and effort to improving the conditions for everyone.
5
Betsy DeVos and her husband are devoted members of the evangelical Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA). Her underlying motivation for promoting vouchers is to get students in schools that allow prayer--i.e., private schools. It is nothing more, nothing less. DeVos wants prayer back in schools, and vouchers is the the way to get there.
5
I am so tired of photo-ops featuring politicians and their appointees with African-American elementary school students, especially when their policies and philosophies are governed entirely by greed and extremely damaging to diverse communities.
5
This is simple...separate but equal doesn't work. It doesn't matter if it is by race or income level. We have to find a way for schools to teach all socio-economic strati together. The best and the brightest aren't always from the "best families". We have to give equal opportunity to all students and that means breaking down the barriers between rich and poor, black and white and every other invalid social construct.
4
There are only so many jobs in our future. We'll be fighting over table scraps if we can't handle the paradigm shift away from work-for-pay. Rich parents will never sit back and let their offspring get left out of the shrinking musical chairs game.
1
Vouchers are a way for people like Betsy DeVos to get the taxpayers to pay for their children to attend private schools. Anybody who wants to send their kids to a religious school or an elite prep school is welcome to do so, but my neighborhood public school shouldn't be drained of funding to pay for it.
Charters' recipe for success: First pick school districts where residents have little political power. Then cherrypick students and churn. Next, cherrypick and manipulate data, jumping to conclusions as needed. Finally, cherrypick pundits who want to believe in numbers without really knowing what they are talking about. Warm in a political pressure cooker closed to all other ideas.
4
A voucher that conveys. let's say, $5,000 to a private school, with a tuition cost of $15-25,000 does';t do much for the poor families. They can choose, but they cannot afford to go. And, if there are several children in the family, the vouchers become even more prohibitive. But, the wealthy DO benefit; because, their children will attend price schools anyway, so why not receive a partial subsidy?
There are three major problems with school vouchers: the Public Schools become underfund, and are often unable to update capital and maintenance expenditures; they enhance Segregation by splitting the wealthier, generally white, children-off from the general populace; and, the net effect is that that separation--mostly wealthy whites into better-funded private schools, and poor and minority children into under-funded public schools, promotes Racism!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
There are three major problems with school vouchers: the Public Schools become underfund, and are often unable to update capital and maintenance expenditures; they enhance Segregation by splitting the wealthier, generally white, children-off from the general populace; and, the net effect is that that separation--mostly wealthy whites into better-funded private schools, and poor and minority children into under-funded public schools, promotes Racism!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
I guess I fall into the reformers camp, but with one minor and one major reservation. I am strongly in favor of charter schools, because I believe that experimentation, along with an evaluation of the results, is the only way to determine which of the competing theories of education work. I am somewhat of a supporter of school vouchers, more on a philosophical basis rather than an educational one. I believe that if one pays for a service, one should have some choice as to who provides it. Where I part company with the author's description of reformers, however, is in the area of standardized testing.
When I was in school (back with the clay tablets and cuneiform writing) we took the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills every two years, and once in high school, the Regents exams at the end of the year. That seemed to work quite well, comparing what we left school knowing to the current graduates. The teachers spend so much time preparing for, administering, and reviewing the multiple standardized tests (this from a number of long-term teacher acquaintances) that teaching time is cut into badly.
Further, there is no evaluation of how valuable the testing is. In our local system, for example, in order to eliminate any bias in the selection of students for advanced classes all students are required to take the evaluation exams. This includes the students in the special education programs.
Testing has become the golden idol of the education system, and we need a Moses.
When I was in school (back with the clay tablets and cuneiform writing) we took the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills every two years, and once in high school, the Regents exams at the end of the year. That seemed to work quite well, comparing what we left school knowing to the current graduates. The teachers spend so much time preparing for, administering, and reviewing the multiple standardized tests (this from a number of long-term teacher acquaintances) that teaching time is cut into badly.
Further, there is no evaluation of how valuable the testing is. In our local system, for example, in order to eliminate any bias in the selection of students for advanced classes all students are required to take the evaluation exams. This includes the students in the special education programs.
Testing has become the golden idol of the education system, and we need a Moses.
2
"I fall into the reformers' camp" is semantically equal to "either I don't know much about education, or I know something about it but don't feel any qualms about destroying it to enrich myself."
Charters don't generally experiment. They do the same things that public schools do, just not as well, with the exception that they can limit their enrollment (if they choose, and some don't) to just those students that will make the school look good. And your support of vouchers falls victim to the consumer mentality, thinking that parents are buying a service when they send their kids to school. The reality is that all of us are paying taxes for a public good, and vouchers are akin to saying that you'd prefer the government to buy you a helicopter so you don't need to use roads.
Charters don't generally experiment. They do the same things that public schools do, just not as well, with the exception that they can limit their enrollment (if they choose, and some don't) to just those students that will make the school look good. And your support of vouchers falls victim to the consumer mentality, thinking that parents are buying a service when they send their kids to school. The reality is that all of us are paying taxes for a public good, and vouchers are akin to saying that you'd prefer the government to buy you a helicopter so you don't need to use roads.
Alas, Leonhardt glosses over charter research. The research that has been done shows that some of the best schools are charters. And some of the worst schools are charters. Overall, though, charters do not outperform public schools. Like public schools, they are a mixed bag.
The original idea of charters was to allow the freedom for educational innovation. Unfortunately, it has become a vehicle for allowing many elite parents to take their children out of public schools. There is some evidence that there is a racial motivation for this. As for charters taking anyone, think again. A lot of high performing charters do cull, but not obviously. After a parent hears that "this school might not be the best fit for your child" enough, they do move their kids out.
Finally, I agree with the voucher discussion here. However, vouchers are going to be a way for the well-to-do to subsidize their children's education. What person, with a child in a private school, would not like a substantial subsidy for that. The reality is is that vouchers will almost never cover the entire tuition cost at a private school. Hence, when coupled with transportation needs, less affluent children will not be able attend elite private schools. Vouchers are merely another way the elites separate themselves from the rest of us.
The original idea of charters was to allow the freedom for educational innovation. Unfortunately, it has become a vehicle for allowing many elite parents to take their children out of public schools. There is some evidence that there is a racial motivation for this. As for charters taking anyone, think again. A lot of high performing charters do cull, but not obviously. After a parent hears that "this school might not be the best fit for your child" enough, they do move their kids out.
Finally, I agree with the voucher discussion here. However, vouchers are going to be a way for the well-to-do to subsidize their children's education. What person, with a child in a private school, would not like a substantial subsidy for that. The reality is is that vouchers will almost never cover the entire tuition cost at a private school. Hence, when coupled with transportation needs, less affluent children will not be able attend elite private schools. Vouchers are merely another way the elites separate themselves from the rest of us.
1
America's genius used to lie in the compromises worked out between the idealism of Jefferson and the pragmatism of Hamiltonian ideas.
Then one side (and the facts are with me on this) decided to use hate and fear to win elections; it started with the Southern Strategy of Nixon but really took off with Ailes, Norquist, and Gingrich ratcheting up the level of rancor and Cheney/Bush calling anyone who disagreed with their invasion of Iraq or any of the other things they did the enemy and un-American.
Perhaps there is some way to insure that vouchers don't drain needed resources from public education and maybe charter schools can be better designed to offer real choices, not just a chance for an entrepreneur to make a buck.
But it really gets down to what we the American people want: A well educated class of people to insure we stay the World's biggest and best beacon of hope and access or do we want to run this vast enterprise of a Nation on the cheap.
If we do the latter we will quickly lose our position in the world. We will truly become Dumnassistan. That, I am sad to say, is our current direction.
Then one side (and the facts are with me on this) decided to use hate and fear to win elections; it started with the Southern Strategy of Nixon but really took off with Ailes, Norquist, and Gingrich ratcheting up the level of rancor and Cheney/Bush calling anyone who disagreed with their invasion of Iraq or any of the other things they did the enemy and un-American.
Perhaps there is some way to insure that vouchers don't drain needed resources from public education and maybe charter schools can be better designed to offer real choices, not just a chance for an entrepreneur to make a buck.
But it really gets down to what we the American people want: A well educated class of people to insure we stay the World's biggest and best beacon of hope and access or do we want to run this vast enterprise of a Nation on the cheap.
If we do the latter we will quickly lose our position in the world. We will truly become Dumnassistan. That, I am sad to say, is our current direction.
Vouchers offer the opportunity to send your child to a religious school with its presumed superior values. If thus is what you want or De Vos wants for you then facts about performance are not so important.
4
Hire VERY HIGH QUALITY teachers who are COMMITTED and PAY they what're worth. Bet we'd see a difference in a year - and each year following.
5
How many HIGH QUALITY teachers do you suppose are out there? All the kids are not above average; we're not going to make teachers out of rocket surgeons and brain scientists even if you paid well. Heck, teaching - you don't even get a potty break, never mind respect. Some teachers are always going to be better than others, and 25% are always going to be in the bottom quartile on effort, intelligence, empathy, training, and whatnot. This is no more realistic than expecting everyone to have data about the best hospitals and choosing to have their heart attacks treated at only the best ones. Our teachers are already committed, and we should pay everyone well, except those who sit around expecting their wealth to do all the work for them.
2
The teachers we have, in the public schools at least, are generally of high quality. Where US students look, in terms of family poverty, like students in other countries, the US public school students generally do better.
We certainly don't pay teachers what they're worth. And we should hire more of them. But better teachers are unlikely to fix the problem, which is really that poor kids tend to do worse on educational outcomes, and we've got enormously more poor kids (especially if you limit it to just public school enrollment) than nearly any other developed country.
We certainly don't pay teachers what they're worth. And we should hire more of them. But better teachers are unlikely to fix the problem, which is really that poor kids tend to do worse on educational outcomes, and we've got enormously more poor kids (especially if you limit it to just public school enrollment) than nearly any other developed country.
We have "choice" where I live in Vermont, but state law doesn't provide for charter schools. We can choose between public schools or so-called independent schools, which are just private schools that can take vouchers. Their only rule is that they can't charge more than the "state average tuition". The independent school available to us is just awful, and has no oversight or accountability to the Department of Education. They don't release any test scores, so it's impossible to judge their performance. They have exclusionary admissions, don't provide special education, and their "teachers" don't have teaching credentials. They have a weird, cult-like approach to the curriculum, while at the same time cannot afford enough teachers to provide any kind of course variety. If it's the year for French, you get French. You take physics in 10th grade, even if you haven't had algebra yet. I could go on and on. I think that this situation could be rectified by passing charter school legislation and having this joke of a school brought under some kind of professional oversight. We sent our oldest daughter to this school for 7&8 grade; thankfully, we could "choose" to remove her to a real (public) school.
7
The problem is likely to be made worse by allowing charters, since they're another way to operate essentially the same scam. If you want to fix it, you've got to stop allowing vouchers.
"Unlike most voucher programs, many charter-school systems are subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight."
"As a result, many charters have flourished, especially in places where traditional schools have struggled."
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
Notice Leonhardt never says "most," but "many." That's because saying "most" charters do any of these things would be false: a minority of charter schools (around 17 percent) outperform traditional public education, and those that do tend to be the most lavishly funded, not the most innovative, most disruptive, or most [insert neoliberal buzzword here].
This is a fairly straightforward case of a disingenuous argument: it layers a flimsy scientific facade over an ideological opposition to public institutions.
"As a result, many charters have flourished, especially in places where traditional schools have struggled."
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
Notice Leonhardt never says "most," but "many." That's because saying "most" charters do any of these things would be false: a minority of charter schools (around 17 percent) outperform traditional public education, and those that do tend to be the most lavishly funded, not the most innovative, most disruptive, or most [insert neoliberal buzzword here].
This is a fairly straightforward case of a disingenuous argument: it layers a flimsy scientific facade over an ideological opposition to public institutions.
10
Charters are private schools that the Republicans love. They want to transfer wealth, remember? You misattribute charters to liberals.
3
Liberals and Republicans have both generally supported charters, though liberals, I think, did so from benign ignorance rather than crass self-interest.
There are some encouraging signs that some of them are starting to realize charters are usually a scam.
There are some encouraging signs that some of them are starting to realize charters are usually a scam.
"many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best"
Families living in shelters, parents incarcerated or drug involved do not enter their children in charter school lottery's. Tens of thousands of students in New York City are homeless. Many schools in impoverished neighborhoods deal with chronic absenteeism. To say that the population of charters schools and public schools are identical is a myth purposely designed to fool the public.
And as taxpayer dollars are siphoned off for these private and charter schools, less money is there for children who desperately need it.
Families living in shelters, parents incarcerated or drug involved do not enter their children in charter school lottery's. Tens of thousands of students in New York City are homeless. Many schools in impoverished neighborhoods deal with chronic absenteeism. To say that the population of charters schools and public schools are identical is a myth purposely designed to fool the public.
And as taxpayer dollars are siphoned off for these private and charter schools, less money is there for children who desperately need it.
Historically, charter schools were supposed to be incubators of educational innovation, unencumbered by the public school governance bureaucracy. In theory, innovations that proved successful in the charter school laboratory could be adopted by mainstream public schools.
Naturally this theory crashed headlong into the reality of disparate funding of local schools and competing jurisdictional regulations.
For better or worse, the US is saddled with a history of decentralized education, which complicates everyone's pet solution for the "perpetual crisis" in public schools.
Naturally this theory crashed headlong into the reality of disparate funding of local schools and competing jurisdictional regulations.
For better or worse, the US is saddled with a history of decentralized education, which complicates everyone's pet solution for the "perpetual crisis" in public schools.
1
Charters in Michigan receive neither rigorous evaluation nor proper oversight precisely because Betsy DeVos stridently opposes asking charters to meet the same standards as traditional public schools. Why would any reasonable observer expect her to take a step nationally that she so fervently opposes at the state level?
7
The selection of DeVos for Education Secretary demonstrates the abiding ignorance of this Administration. Her approval shows how money has captured the very terms of discussion. Her lack of training and experience should worry her, and us, every morning.
Choice and vouchers are indeed different, but neither one will ever have as much impact on improving student outcomes as will developing literacy during the infant and
pre-school years. The sooner this is acknowledged, the better.
Until the value of literacy is appreciated, and resources are devoted to universal and free pre-school efforts for literacy before kindergarten - which is actually possible - our educators of every kind will be working with a permanent handicap.
Choice and vouchers are indeed different, but neither one will ever have as much impact on improving student outcomes as will developing literacy during the infant and
pre-school years. The sooner this is acknowledged, the better.
Until the value of literacy is appreciated, and resources are devoted to universal and free pre-school efforts for literacy before kindergarten - which is actually possible - our educators of every kind will be working with a permanent handicap.
1
Improving schools is "simple." Look at the highest performing students/schools in other countries, and see how much higher teacher salaries (**and standards/required qualifications for teachers) are, and in how much higher regard they are viewed and treated. Excellent teachers = far better student results, period. Raise the bar for teachers (more continuing, and raise their salaries by 50-100%, and watch what would happen. This may be a pipe dream, but we already spend inordinate amounts of $ on education, and whatever we're spending on doesn't work. Just look at the $/per pupil in the worst performing schools in the country: it's often the highest in the country.
Actually, also look at the S/per public in the highest-performing states such as Massachusetts and New Jersey. Correlation is not causation, but there is a correlation between high teacher pay and quality education.
4
We have been reforming schools at least since John Dewey, with nothing to show for it. Public schools, charter schools, vouchers...these are all different teams playing the same game. The one team that never wins is the children.
I think there is something wrong with the game. It is past time to re-consider the fundamental structure and purpose of public education, starting with compulsion. Let's start by getting the fascism out of public education.
Currently, a student is compelled to stay in school until age 16 (18, in some places). But if the student drops out, he drops out with nothing, putting himself at a serious social disadvantage.
Instead, let's start thinking about a program that ends with a school leaving certificate at 8th grade. Certainly not later than 10th grade.
I think there is something wrong with the game. It is past time to re-consider the fundamental structure and purpose of public education, starting with compulsion. Let's start by getting the fascism out of public education.
Currently, a student is compelled to stay in school until age 16 (18, in some places). But if the student drops out, he drops out with nothing, putting himself at a serious social disadvantage.
Instead, let's start thinking about a program that ends with a school leaving certificate at 8th grade. Certainly not later than 10th grade.
1
Possibly you need to investigate the consequences of your proposal. You assume that when children have the freedom to leave school at age 14 or age 16, they will do so to pursue things that are more meaningful that what they pursue in high school. This will be the case for a small number whose families have the time and funds to assist in these next pursuits. But for the majority the street will be the result.
2
Having school choice is an important tool in educating the country's youth, but it doesn't necessarily have to come in the form of charter schools. They are plenty of examples of public school systems that offer alternatives to traditional public high schools and some them here in NJ are rated amongst the highest in the nation. http://www.nj.com/education/2016/04/nj_has_5_of_americas_100_best_high_s...
This push by the GOP to fund private schools with tax payer money has only one objective, dwindling the membership and influence in public school teacher's unions.
This push by the GOP to fund private schools with tax payer money has only one objective, dwindling the membership and influence in public school teacher's unions.
2
The best solution would be to make all public schools charter schools BUT with accountability to the local school board and parents and teachers.
1
Half the country would stop teaching evolution and leave their students unprepared to be doctors, scientists and engineers. Maybe you think that's great in Kansas.
3
When it comes to schools, choice is just another word for segregation. That's the aggregate effect. Between those who have a chance in this world and those who are denied one.
4
No, choice is not working. It is divided communities, re-segregating schools and decimating public education. It is a false promise that reduces overall commitment to education. It is an essentially racist scheme, that leads to highly regimented, often punitive, schools for kids of color because reformers think "they need it." It is driven by money.
The alleged "improvement" in outcomes is a mirage created by gaming the system and teaching to the test. For example, KIPP schools recently boasted of acclaim from US News and World Report (speaking of meaningless nonsense), and it was because of statistical sleight of hand that would make David Blaine proud.
I have never read or heard from an education reform fan, including Leonhardt, who can describe what the "end game" is for the choice advocates. What equitable, national system do they envision? How will a choice-based system do anything other than sort and re-sort students based on likelihood of success? How do choice advocates see the impact of their divisive work on the sense of community that neighborhood, public schools support?
School choice is a plutocrat-driven manipulation intended to privatize American education.
The alleged "improvement" in outcomes is a mirage created by gaming the system and teaching to the test. For example, KIPP schools recently boasted of acclaim from US News and World Report (speaking of meaningless nonsense), and it was because of statistical sleight of hand that would make David Blaine proud.
I have never read or heard from an education reform fan, including Leonhardt, who can describe what the "end game" is for the choice advocates. What equitable, national system do they envision? How will a choice-based system do anything other than sort and re-sort students based on likelihood of success? How do choice advocates see the impact of their divisive work on the sense of community that neighborhood, public schools support?
School choice is a plutocrat-driven manipulation intended to privatize American education.
5
"The question for DeVos is whether she’s an ideologue committed to prior beliefs regardless of facts or someone who has an open mind."
If this person had an "open mind" she would not be where she is in either her job or her views on education.
"First, education isn’t just another issue. It is the most powerful force for accelerating...."
If you leave off the rest your sentence, you have an insight.
Education is not commodity. It is not a product. It is not a profit making opportunity for entrepreneurial deal makers and speculators like Trump and DeVos.
Education, like Health Care, is a Right. It is the most powerful force for accelerating the "Self Evident Principles of human understanding and equality and justice for all that exists. This is the reason it has been under unrelenting attack from the Exclusive would be again rulers, the members of the .01% since the election of the Trojan horse named Reagan.
The education of our children and indeed lots and lots of our adults who were cheated out of an education by the policies and programs of the trickle down con game should be our number one objective. Education, not roads and bridges creates the infrastructure of Democracy.
We need several million new teachers and lots of schools and education programs that include feeding the children, and class sizes of say 10 to 1. The department of Education is really our Defense Department and their budgets should be reversed..
If this person had an "open mind" she would not be where she is in either her job or her views on education.
"First, education isn’t just another issue. It is the most powerful force for accelerating...."
If you leave off the rest your sentence, you have an insight.
Education is not commodity. It is not a product. It is not a profit making opportunity for entrepreneurial deal makers and speculators like Trump and DeVos.
Education, like Health Care, is a Right. It is the most powerful force for accelerating the "Self Evident Principles of human understanding and equality and justice for all that exists. This is the reason it has been under unrelenting attack from the Exclusive would be again rulers, the members of the .01% since the election of the Trojan horse named Reagan.
The education of our children and indeed lots and lots of our adults who were cheated out of an education by the policies and programs of the trickle down con game should be our number one objective. Education, not roads and bridges creates the infrastructure of Democracy.
We need several million new teachers and lots of schools and education programs that include feeding the children, and class sizes of say 10 to 1. The department of Education is really our Defense Department and their budgets should be reversed..
3
Because you are including New Orleans, the statistics are wrong.
The New Orleans school system was essentially abolished after Katrina and replaced with charter schools. The richer neighborhoods were not flooded, but most of the City, including areas of deep generational poverty, were entirely destroyed, and a significant number of residents did not return. (I have met several people in Dallas who say the work is better here, and a student allowed to attend a private school here who is deeply deeply grateful for that opportunity. So let me be clear that I am not blaming people who had been stuck in generational poverty neighborhoods and schools.)
The charters after Katrina also received serious donations, as for example France funding French emersion programs.
So yes, the charter schools that replaced the traditional schools are doing better -- how could they not with fewer children, more money, and the chance to rebuild from scratch?
The New Orleans school system was essentially abolished after Katrina and replaced with charter schools. The richer neighborhoods were not flooded, but most of the City, including areas of deep generational poverty, were entirely destroyed, and a significant number of residents did not return. (I have met several people in Dallas who say the work is better here, and a student allowed to attend a private school here who is deeply deeply grateful for that opportunity. So let me be clear that I am not blaming people who had been stuck in generational poverty neighborhoods and schools.)
The charters after Katrina also received serious donations, as for example France funding French emersion programs.
So yes, the charter schools that replaced the traditional schools are doing better -- how could they not with fewer children, more money, and the chance to rebuild from scratch?
4
I support the idea of vouchers simply because as a parent who had spent big bucks on private schools for my children, I know how punished I felt to be shelling out big bucks in school taxes at the same time. Vouchers would have reduced some debt I carried to pay tuition.
1
Sorry, no. Any careful look at the data shows that charter schools that perform well almost universally self-select their students, excluding kids who might pull down their numbers. This self-selection is sometimes unlawfully discriminatory - few kids with serious disabilities or behavioral issues are educated by charters. (It's also nearly impossible for a TFA kid with an Econ degree there for a 2-year commitment at $35k a year to figure out how to provide competent special ed after an 8-week crash course.) Those kids are in mainstream public schools or not at all. And with charters in the mix, those schools have less money to do it. As long as we are a country committed to educating everyone, we have to stop being charmed by exceptions to the rule. Experimentation is necessary but we have to remember why we must reform - for the kids that are left behind everywhere. Check out The Bad Kids documentary for some ideas about how we can help the most challenging kids succeed.
2
Per your email, I am willing to question my beliefs. But when you start with a blatant error, that charters are "public schools," you lose me. They are publicly funded, but the overwhelming majority are privately run, and many are for profit.
The canard of high performing charters is built upon a foundation of sand. Most admit by lottery, which means the bar is set for parents motivated enough to apply to get over. To fairly compare, the lottery should be conducted whether parents apply, or not. Otherwise it is children of motivated parents compared to children in schools of last resort.
Success Academies demands parental participation, something many of us upper middle class parents take for granted. But not all parents are ready, willing, or able to participate in their children's educations.
Fair comparison only: same proportion of special ed students, english language learners, and then the comparison might be fair and valid.
The canard of high performing charters is built upon a foundation of sand. Most admit by lottery, which means the bar is set for parents motivated enough to apply to get over. To fairly compare, the lottery should be conducted whether parents apply, or not. Otherwise it is children of motivated parents compared to children in schools of last resort.
Success Academies demands parental participation, something many of us upper middle class parents take for granted. But not all parents are ready, willing, or able to participate in their children's educations.
Fair comparison only: same proportion of special ed students, english language learners, and then the comparison might be fair and valid.
4
Mr. Leonhardt's facts are wrong or "alternative". Many, if not most, charter schools do skim, either in their recruitment and sign-up process or later by counseling out students they don't want and by not backfilling empty seats. Their attrition is the only thing that makes test scores and graduation rates seem higher.
Most charters lack oversight and accountability, and many steadfastly refuse to release any statistical information about anything, like teacher turnover, administrative pay, attrition, and even their own curriculum choices or programs of study. We don't know, for example, how graduates fair when they get mixed in with other students at the high school level (after attending a K-8 charter) or college level. It's quite possible the lock-step "no excuses" model of many charter schools does long-term harm.
Lastly, whatever educational virtues are claimed by charter schools, they hurt the taxpaying public. They duplicate administrative costs, are ripe for fraud and corruption, and undermine community-based schools, especially in smaller towns and rural areas, by taking away funds for special programs.
What the public often doesn't realize: charter equipment, buildings, and properties are paid for with tax dollars but not actually owned by the public. So we should not be surprised to see lower-quality education for many kids and more rent-seeking behaviors. It's a bad model for schools.
Most charters lack oversight and accountability, and many steadfastly refuse to release any statistical information about anything, like teacher turnover, administrative pay, attrition, and even their own curriculum choices or programs of study. We don't know, for example, how graduates fair when they get mixed in with other students at the high school level (after attending a K-8 charter) or college level. It's quite possible the lock-step "no excuses" model of many charter schools does long-term harm.
Lastly, whatever educational virtues are claimed by charter schools, they hurt the taxpaying public. They duplicate administrative costs, are ripe for fraud and corruption, and undermine community-based schools, especially in smaller towns and rural areas, by taking away funds for special programs.
What the public often doesn't realize: charter equipment, buildings, and properties are paid for with tax dollars but not actually owned by the public. So we should not be surprised to see lower-quality education for many kids and more rent-seeking behaviors. It's a bad model for schools.
I'm an urban community college teacher, a long-time political progressive, who often has a chance to discuss schooling with low-income parents who are students in my classes. Leonhardt confirms some things that have been going on in my mind lately. It's clear that local charter schools have been a successful option for many of my students and their kids. I would only question the statement that "identifying a good school is hard for parents." Parents know whether their children are engaged, whether they like school, whether they are learning; and information about good schools and bad schools spreads effectively through community grapevines.
2
I live in Canada and can comment on the single payer system. We never see a bill. In fact we never see a piece of paper. We check in to the hospital for tests and we are always on the computer for that time and place. The computer information moves with us from place to place. We show our health card and that is all we have to do. Period. Sometimes someone has to wait a bit for elective surgery, like knee surgery, which is much in demand, but usually there is no wait, the staff are efficient, well trained, orderly and calm. I certainly would not want to give up this system, it is a good one. Of course is was not accomplished overnight, Canada has had this care for a very long time and has honed it to a highly efficient state.
1
I think, in general, the evidence on charters is spotty, at best (and, for the record, the same can be said about many public schools but...). But, the critical distinction is that public schools have a distinctly different level of accountability and they are not wholly governed by market forces. Charters operate on a competitive model. Schools are not businesses and can't be approached as if they are.
Secondly, the battle being fought over charters is in some measure a proxy for support of all public institutions. I contend that much of the support for charters is being pushed by those who, on some level, have a philosophical disagreement with supporting public institutions. Some have a beef with the AFT or the NEA (and unions in general) and this is one way that unions can be weakened or marginalized.
Lastly, this comes together nicely if we look back 15 or so years. NCLB was passed -cynically in my mind- by a Bush Admin that had its hopes set on creating the circumstances where we would lose faith in the ability of "government" to work well or effectively. The bill was designed to fail and further the narrative that all of this needs blown up and privatized. You could imagine people in the Bush Dept of Ed saying "look at all this money we spent and it still doesn't work." It was intended to be corrosive.
You can't have a conversation about charters or vouchers unless you ground the debate in that context.
Secondly, the battle being fought over charters is in some measure a proxy for support of all public institutions. I contend that much of the support for charters is being pushed by those who, on some level, have a philosophical disagreement with supporting public institutions. Some have a beef with the AFT or the NEA (and unions in general) and this is one way that unions can be weakened or marginalized.
Lastly, this comes together nicely if we look back 15 or so years. NCLB was passed -cynically in my mind- by a Bush Admin that had its hopes set on creating the circumstances where we would lose faith in the ability of "government" to work well or effectively. The bill was designed to fail and further the narrative that all of this needs blown up and privatized. You could imagine people in the Bush Dept of Ed saying "look at all this money we spent and it still doesn't work." It was intended to be corrosive.
You can't have a conversation about charters or vouchers unless you ground the debate in that context.
1
Contrary to your premise, education is not "the most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards."
It would be nice if it was that simple, but we don't need our baristas and school bus drivers to have PhDs in nuclear engineering. Even if everyone gets a PhD, we still need school bus drivers and baristas.
The most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards is consumer DEMAND. If people are buying things from people, all those good things will follow.
To get there, people need to have jobs at living wages, and they need a social structure around them that allows them to work by ensuring the sick, the young and the elderly are taken care of.
What we have instead is an economic system where a small cadre of the wealthy skim all the profits while pitting the suppliers of labor against each other in a race to the bottom.
It would be nice if it was that simple, but we don't need our baristas and school bus drivers to have PhDs in nuclear engineering. Even if everyone gets a PhD, we still need school bus drivers and baristas.
The most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards is consumer DEMAND. If people are buying things from people, all those good things will follow.
To get there, people need to have jobs at living wages, and they need a social structure around them that allows them to work by ensuring the sick, the young and the elderly are taken care of.
What we have instead is an economic system where a small cadre of the wealthy skim all the profits while pitting the suppliers of labor against each other in a race to the bottom.
4
Certainly, there are charter schools that do well, some that do poorly, and a lot that are in between. But there is one bias that affects the academic performance of charter schools that cannot be denied. That bias is “choice.” Parents who choose to place their children in a charter school do so because they are concerned about and engaged in their children’s education. And parental involvement is one of the better predictors of a child’s academic performance.
My problem with the expansion of charters is that it increasing segregates the public school population. No charter school is going to take on the severely handicapped. They cannot afford to. One severely disabled child in my public school district cost that district about $100,00 per year to serve. And at least in my state, such children must be provided educational services until the age of 21. Then there are the emotionally troubled, the kids from dysfunctional family situations, and those who are simply seen as troublemakers. Charters can expel them or screen them out. Traditional public schools cannot.
My problem with the expansion of charters is that it increasing segregates the public school population. No charter school is going to take on the severely handicapped. They cannot afford to. One severely disabled child in my public school district cost that district about $100,00 per year to serve. And at least in my state, such children must be provided educational services until the age of 21. Then there are the emotionally troubled, the kids from dysfunctional family situations, and those who are simply seen as troublemakers. Charters can expel them or screen them out. Traditional public schools cannot.
1
The difference between Sec. De Voss and true reformers is one of educational religion. De Voss has a religious belief in the free market being the way to produce educational results no matter what the evidence says. Like in standard religion, it doesn't matter what science says, faith is everything.
Defenders of public schools have a similar faith in the standard model public school as being best.
But true reformers (of which I count myself as one), are agnostic as to the type of school or educational method used (within ethical bounds) as long the children learn in the best way possible.
Everyone should be an educational agnostic.
Defenders of public schools have a similar faith in the standard model public school as being best.
But true reformers (of which I count myself as one), are agnostic as to the type of school or educational method used (within ethical bounds) as long the children learn in the best way possible.
Everyone should be an educational agnostic.
Canada consistently scores second to Finland among western nations on international comparisons of educational outcomes. Our teachers are fully unionized and well paid. All teachers have at least one university degree. Very few parents send their children to private schools - even wealthy parents. What's the secret? K-12 education is funded almost entirely by provincial (state) level financing not by local financing. Local property taxes are pooled and redistributed among school districts based on formula reflecting need, not local wealth. Schools in the neediest areas get the most funding, not the least.
4
My sympathies are all over the place here. My children were twice exceptional and the public school did their best, but it certainly wasn't the best possible for them. The gifted class was run by a teacher who had no idea how to deal with their disabilities and the regular classroom was so boring my kids saw little point in most of the instruction. One child needed so much help with social skills that we made the sacrifice to put her in a private school for middle school, one that had a class for human relationships. They nearly kicked her out for her behavior, but she improved vastly because of that school. This was a school for normal kids of wealthy families, and I wish the public school realized the benefits of and could afford to have classes like this too.
If my school district had been one that was even a little less accommodating, I could really have been tempted to agitate for vouchers or charters as well. You want to do what is best for your kids.
If my school district had been one that was even a little less accommodating, I could really have been tempted to agitate for vouchers or charters as well. You want to do what is best for your kids.
3
My question for Mr. Leonhardt, or more likely readers, is "how to we ensure every child gets a good education". There are not enough "good" schools; every school has to be good. A core principle with which many seem to not agree is that every child, regardless not only of parental income or wealth but even parental involvemnt or caring, should have the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential. In some ways it is a conundrum; we all want our children to have the best education, the most opportunities, but how can we have that without some other children having fewer?
No achievement standards, no accountability, no success. Reasonable, equitable rules are meant to make things work better. Education, and health care, should never be for profit. If they are, only the well-to-do will have them.
2
Basic charter school info : they take who they want and toss out those who aren't doing well.
( you need parental involvement , etc, to be considered- )
Studies that compare publics to charters are often flawed - You can randomize the publics but not the charters.
I could turn any school into a model school if I'm allowed to pick my students and throw out the slackers.
( you need parental involvement , etc, to be considered- )
Studies that compare publics to charters are often flawed - You can randomize the publics but not the charters.
I could turn any school into a model school if I'm allowed to pick my students and throw out the slackers.
1
I have been a teacher and curriculum coordinator in Maine. I am interested in research about what works and am currently reading Visible Learning into Action - International Case Studies of Impact by John Hattie, Deb Masters, Kate Birch
Charter Schools might benefit greatly by taking a close look at this research.
Charter Schools might benefit greatly by taking a close look at this research.
1
Vouchers should be given only for schools with PROVEN success. They should also not go to for profit schools.
The writer states that "Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best.". This is incorrect. Students with parents who are engaged enough to research and choose a charter are definitely advantaged relative to those who don't. Thus there will still be a significant skimming effect.
DC has some excellent traditional public schools. They have long waiting lists. There are also many terrible undersubscribed traditional schools.
There are also terrific charter schools. Again with long waiting lists. There some awful charter schools that should be shut down.
The same is true of the range of private schools. From spectacularly good to just pathetic.
The problem with the study that Is relied upon here like many of the studies opponents of choice and voucher use is that the excellent and rotten are lumped together indiscriminately.
Children have a right to the best education their parents can arrange for them. That should not be limited by politics or their finances.
It is wrong to foreclose any option.
There are also terrific charter schools. Again with long waiting lists. There some awful charter schools that should be shut down.
The same is true of the range of private schools. From spectacularly good to just pathetic.
The problem with the study that Is relied upon here like many of the studies opponents of choice and voucher use is that the excellent and rotten are lumped together indiscriminately.
Children have a right to the best education their parents can arrange for them. That should not be limited by politics or their finances.
It is wrong to foreclose any option.
1
If by school choice we mean using public funds to let parents and certain "wink, wink, nod, nod" schools set up well to do, whites only districts then I am vehemently against this notion. However, if by school choice we mean that public teachers and school administrators can have the freedom and funding to apply their creative skills to produce the most fruitful experience for all students without any discrimination then I applaud this effort. The one fallacy in all this debate over education is that the educational process can be quantified and measured like it was some sort of physical commodity. Good teaching is an art and the resulting learning process is an organic, humanistic phenomenon that is obvious to the observer when successful but eludes the statisticians' measurement techniques. Education should be equally available to all and should be publicly funded. If you want to send your kid to private school, go for it. But you pay for it.
2
How often are vouchers used to pay tuition to religious schools--and what types of religious schools? How many of these schools do not welcome those who are not adherents of a certain orthodoxy, one that promotes creationism, for example?
2
Regarding healthcare - I have been an Emergency Nurse for 45 years, and I have watched the evolution of turmoil and incredible dysfunction of medicine for profit.
We are the only "civilized" nation in the world that does not provide affordable healthcare for ALL of its citizens. - it's a moral problem.
If you haven't already read it, "The Healing of America" by T.R. Reid is a wonderful, clear explanation of how universal healthcare works successfully in five countries with different healthcare systems.
Typically, healthcare insurance providers take approximately 20% of incoming funds for "administrative costs" (advertising, bonuses, etc). Medicare takes less than 5%.
The next most expensive national healthcare systems spend less than half of what we spend, and get much better outcomes.
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
We are the only "civilized" nation in the world that does not provide affordable healthcare for ALL of its citizens. - it's a moral problem.
If you haven't already read it, "The Healing of America" by T.R. Reid is a wonderful, clear explanation of how universal healthcare works successfully in five countries with different healthcare systems.
Typically, healthcare insurance providers take approximately 20% of incoming funds for "administrative costs" (advertising, bonuses, etc). Medicare takes less than 5%.
The next most expensive national healthcare systems spend less than half of what we spend, and get much better outcomes.
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
3
The experience that there seems to be a need for charter/voucher schools tells you all you need to know about the state of public education in America.
And the fact that the very concept is being discussed shows the dangerous depth to which the U.S. has reached with it's corporatism. In it's own way, it mirrors the brainwashing of the young in matters of religion and the harm it does.
There is only one direction this will lead. Insidious advertising and indoctrination
of malleable young minds, in various degrees of subtlety.
Give me the child at seven, and I will make the man, as the Jesuits used to say.
Making business of basic education is as wrong as of basic healthcare.
Will Americans ever learn?
And the fact that the very concept is being discussed shows the dangerous depth to which the U.S. has reached with it's corporatism. In it's own way, it mirrors the brainwashing of the young in matters of religion and the harm it does.
There is only one direction this will lead. Insidious advertising and indoctrination
of malleable young minds, in various degrees of subtlety.
Give me the child at seven, and I will make the man, as the Jesuits used to say.
Making business of basic education is as wrong as of basic healthcare.
Will Americans ever learn?
3
Why do we keep on using local property taxes to fund schools? Why do we allow parents to have so much say in the curriculum? Why isn't becoming a teacher taken as seriously as becoming a doctor, an engineer, a musician, etc? Why are parents convinced that anyone can teach? Why don't we have a national curriculum so that students in California are learning what students in Ohio are learning? Could it be that Americans don't care or don't understand that a good K-12 education is important for every child, not just the ones who go to college?
If educating the young is so vital why do we not put an emphasis on retaining and training and mentoring teachers? Why do we eliminate classes like art, music, phys. ed., and keep funding sports? The problems in American education are also political problems which is why nothing is ever solved. If we want children to grow up and become productive happy citizens we need to educate them, have them in safe schools with well qualified teachers, have excellent day care for all children, and stop with the steady erosion due to the "privatization" of public education.
If educating the young is so vital why do we not put an emphasis on retaining and training and mentoring teachers? Why do we eliminate classes like art, music, phys. ed., and keep funding sports? The problems in American education are also political problems which is why nothing is ever solved. If we want children to grow up and become productive happy citizens we need to educate them, have them in safe schools with well qualified teachers, have excellent day care for all children, and stop with the steady erosion due to the "privatization" of public education.
12
As a former teacher, I agree with every word you've written. Thank you, Hen3ry
2
I disagree with funding charters because they in effect defund basic public schools. The charter school concept has gotten out of control and they are seen as a way to keep your child away from the riffraff.
We fix education by better funding for public schools, good quality teachers (pay them) and standards. All of which are under attack.
Spreading the jelly thinner only makes for a less desirable sandwich.
We fix education by better funding for public schools, good quality teachers (pay them) and standards. All of which are under attack.
Spreading the jelly thinner only makes for a less desirable sandwich.
25
The first two articles referenced by Mr. Leonhardt to support his statement that "many charters have flourished" raise some questions.
1. Washington – "Does gentrification explain rising student scores in Washington, DC?", authors: Kristin Blagg, Matthew Chingos (Urban Institute)
- this article provides no evidence at all regarding charter schools
2. Boston - "Schools That Work", author: Leonhardt
- in this article, Leonhardt summarizes favorable evidence found here: https://seii.mit.edu/research/study/academic-version-of-charter-schools-...
- Leonhardt here acknowledges that some charter school results have been disappointing, but the evidence is more than anecdotal: http://www.in-perspective.org/pages/student-achievement
1. Washington – "Does gentrification explain rising student scores in Washington, DC?", authors: Kristin Blagg, Matthew Chingos (Urban Institute)
- this article provides no evidence at all regarding charter schools
2. Boston - "Schools That Work", author: Leonhardt
- in this article, Leonhardt summarizes favorable evidence found here: https://seii.mit.edu/research/study/academic-version-of-charter-schools-...
- Leonhardt here acknowledges that some charter school results have been disappointing, but the evidence is more than anecdotal: http://www.in-perspective.org/pages/student-achievement
7
The continuing dumbing down of America went into high-gear when Betsy DeVos was appointed Secretary of Education.
24
Doremus--As with his majesty, donald trump, we thought things couldn't get worse.
2
The goal of most of your so-called "reformers" is to kill public education. Junk like this only helps them.
20
Hogwarts
6
Join us for an energizing conversation at the Morristown Public Library from 2 to 4 p.m. on Sunday, May 7 in Morristown NJ for American Revolution 2.0 -- focused on issues, not politics. We will be considering what education in America could look like. Filmmakers of 'The Rule' documenting the educational approach of Benedictine Monks in Newark NJ, J. Thomas Woelper, Head of School of Far Hills Country Day School and Charles Heckscher, Director of Workplace Collaboration & Transformation, School of Management and Labor Studies, Rutgers University will share their perspectives on 'the secret sauce' that makes education effective and relevant now and in the future. Visit www.americanrevolution2.net
3
Could Betsy DeVos pass a "standardized" test given to our school children?
19
Doremus--Probably not, since she's never had to work, so never needed an education. Same goes for trump. It's all so "easy" for them.
3
Yes.
In Rochester New York, the public school system has experimented with several major innovations, including greatly increased funding. From periodic investigations by our Rochester newspaper, the schools have documented little success in addressing the severe educational needs of inner city children. Nor has appointment of a score of talented District Superintendents led to the hoped for improvements. The documented need for effective education is enormous and well recognized in our community. Supporting experiments aimed at producing educated inner city youth, e.g. the current Charter School movement, then adopting empirical findings, seems obvious. That's why I support the Charter School Movement. An example of successful educational innovation with inner city youth is Syracuse's On-Point for College Program. It places, and keeps (80% graduate) inner-city students in colleges, until they earn their Degree. Gini Donahue created On-Point for College. She set the stage for success of over 1,000 inner city kids by dealing with each of many issues causing inner city kids to drop out of college -- transportation to and from the college, clothing, housing, and other issues. That same detailed approach to removing barriers, one kid at a time, will likely work with our grade, middle, and high school kids.
Dick Butler, Past President of Syracuse Sunshine Rotary Club, a supporter of On-Point for College in its early years.
Dick Butler, Past President of Syracuse Sunshine Rotary Club, a supporter of On-Point for College in its early years.
5
RICHRD--Graduation rate is no evidence. Lots of kids get moved along, from grade to grade. My kid, who skipped out on his entire senior year, in Little Rock, "graduated" with a 1.9 accumulative average, even though I repeatedly questioned that decision. How many of these students have graduated from an institution of higher learning? (I'm happy to report that my kid eventually earned an MA from Boston College, regardless of his worthless HS experience.)
3
Funny how when charter/private schools succeed - it is only because they are teaching to the test and when they fail - it is absolutely because they obtain lower test results.
Ms DeVos bases her fanatical backing of vouchers is not based on science but on the teachings of the Christian Reformed Church and specifically on the teachings of Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper believed that schools should solely serve one denomination, Methodist schools, Episcopal schools, Catholic schools....
Until you understand why she is pursing the breakdown of the American educational system you will fail in preventing her from continuing with this folly which is based on religious dogma.
Until you understand why she is pursing the breakdown of the American educational system you will fail in preventing her from continuing with this folly which is based on religious dogma.
16
Excellent comment. It is good that Kless has brought Kuyper, who favored the "pillarization" of society along religious lines and who was influential at Calvin College, the institution that produced Betsy DeVos. -- Edd Doerr
2
When Mr. Leonhardt wrote, "The anecdotes about failed charters are real, but they’re not the norm," he was just one word off. It should have read "The anecdotes about successful charters are real, but they’re not the norm.'
Almost all high preforming schools succeed following the same strategy: Exclude at-risk students. This approach is employed by private schools, charter schools, selective enrollment schools, and suburban schools.
4
Charters have more regulation in Indiana than in most other states, but on average, their performance is no better if as good as that of traditional public schools even though charters enroll a lower proportion of special ed. and non-English speaking students.
Indiana vouchers were sold as a means of escape for poor students in 'trapped' in failing public schools. Yet vouchers were not limited either to failing students or students in failing public schools. Noticeably, vouchers were consistently pushed by legislators whose children were in private schools and who wanted the public to pay for it. Family income limits have been raised; students don't need ever to have attended any public school - let alone a failing one; and failing voucher schools continue to receive taxpayer funds. Voucher schools can and do discriminate against students who are not members of the church affiliated with the school AND against special ed. and non-English speaking students. Even so, student achievement in these schools is no better than that of public schools.
Choice and competition aren't working to elevate achievement. Neither is cutting public schools which accept all students to finance the schools which don't. Perhaps we should listen to the educators on the front lines to ask what they need to succeed.
Indiana vouchers were sold as a means of escape for poor students in 'trapped' in failing public schools. Yet vouchers were not limited either to failing students or students in failing public schools. Noticeably, vouchers were consistently pushed by legislators whose children were in private schools and who wanted the public to pay for it. Family income limits have been raised; students don't need ever to have attended any public school - let alone a failing one; and failing voucher schools continue to receive taxpayer funds. Voucher schools can and do discriminate against students who are not members of the church affiliated with the school AND against special ed. and non-English speaking students. Even so, student achievement in these schools is no better than that of public schools.
Choice and competition aren't working to elevate achievement. Neither is cutting public schools which accept all students to finance the schools which don't. Perhaps we should listen to the educators on the front lines to ask what they need to succeed.
17
Vouchers for home schoolers is another delightful topic. In many states there is hardly any regulation.
I teach.
Few actual teachers are invited to participate in educational reform. Overwhemingly, the teaching force is female; therefore the profession is given little status.
Two problems with your rosy scenario:
We do not know how to evaluate good teaching. I ask my AP students what they think is more important—to be loved or feared (Machiavelli’s question). Can kids learn from a teacher who they believe does not like them? Emotional support is so important in elementary.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/most-likely-to-succeed-malc...
Privatization and standardized curriculum are scams. I’m trained to test and evaluate. You’re paying twice. You’re letting amatuers apply:
“Of the 292 charter schools that received federal grant money in Ohio since 2006-07, 92 have either closed or failed to even open, according to a report today from "Know Your Charter," a collaboration between Innovation Ohio and the Ohio Education Association.”
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/feds_gave_30_million_in...
Think of all the variables in good schooling, Mr. Leonhardt. Churches lose congregants, schools become centers of community. Absenteeism in Ivory Coast is due to dental decay (BBC). We have a child dental clinic. The community joins in a massive fundraiser annually. Charters reduce community.
Few actual teachers are invited to participate in educational reform. Overwhemingly, the teaching force is female; therefore the profession is given little status.
Two problems with your rosy scenario:
We do not know how to evaluate good teaching. I ask my AP students what they think is more important—to be loved or feared (Machiavelli’s question). Can kids learn from a teacher who they believe does not like them? Emotional support is so important in elementary.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/most-likely-to-succeed-malc...
Privatization and standardized curriculum are scams. I’m trained to test and evaluate. You’re paying twice. You’re letting amatuers apply:
“Of the 292 charter schools that received federal grant money in Ohio since 2006-07, 92 have either closed or failed to even open, according to a report today from "Know Your Charter," a collaboration between Innovation Ohio and the Ohio Education Association.”
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/feds_gave_30_million_in...
Think of all the variables in good schooling, Mr. Leonhardt. Churches lose congregants, schools become centers of community. Absenteeism in Ivory Coast is due to dental decay (BBC). We have a child dental clinic. The community joins in a massive fundraiser annually. Charters reduce community.
5
If you're that intent on sending your children to God school, your fight is not with the government to give you free passes but with the schools themselves as to why their costs are so prohibitive.
Of course the children themselves eventually will wonder why they get mired in religious indoctrination when Mom and Dad like to sleep late on the Sabbath.
Of course the children themselves eventually will wonder why they get mired in religious indoctrination when Mom and Dad like to sleep late on the Sabbath.
Why should liberals and progressives become more 'conservative' while knowing that conservatives only become more conservative.
4
Wouldn't another reasonable expectation of someone who is Secretary of Education be to have a college degree in education?
Betsy DeVos does not have any, repeating that, does not have any degree in education! None!
Betsy DeVos does not have any, repeating that, does not have any degree in education! None!
8
Or maybe even some experience in public education? And not for profit.
1
This only bothers people that went to teachers colleges. Many people feel this education is not very useful; that subject matter expertise is superior and that more of a "medical model" with internship and close supervision would be superior--rather than high sounding pedagogy unrelated to the realities.
4
Having studied in a well-regarded graduate school program in education I cannot agree. It is difficult for me to think of any endeavor for which an education degree should be a requirement.
3
Why not try to improve public schools instead of starving them?
9
Public schools are not working because the rich and the powerful don't care to send their kids to any of them.
Betsy DeVos is no educational public school experienced pioneer like Dr. Barbara Ann Sizemore and Dr. Diane Silvers Ravitch. See Dr. Sizemore's 'The Ruptured Diamond' and Google her on youtube. See 'The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education' and 'Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools' by Dr. Ravitch
Betsy was born to and married to white wealthy private educational privilege.
Betsy DeVos is no educational public school experienced pioneer like Dr. Barbara Ann Sizemore and Dr. Diane Silvers Ravitch. See Dr. Sizemore's 'The Ruptured Diamond' and Google her on youtube. See 'The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education' and 'Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to America's Public Schools' by Dr. Ravitch
Betsy was born to and married to white wealthy private educational privilege.
7
The rich never sent their children to public schools.
Once upon a time, when parents reared their children to respect both teachers and education itself, students worked hard and thrived in our public schools. These were poor children, the children of immigrants, like my parents; middle-class and working-class kids; children whose English skills were minimal but improved quickly; black children who, segregated, to be sure, did well anyway, and no thanks to white people.
It takes responsible parents, motivated kids, and kind but firm teachers who know their subjects and can communicate clearly, to produce educated citizens.
Fast forward to the late 1960s.
Once upon a time, when parents reared their children to respect both teachers and education itself, students worked hard and thrived in our public schools. These were poor children, the children of immigrants, like my parents; middle-class and working-class kids; children whose English skills were minimal but improved quickly; black children who, segregated, to be sure, did well anyway, and no thanks to white people.
It takes responsible parents, motivated kids, and kind but firm teachers who know their subjects and can communicate clearly, to produce educated citizens.
Fast forward to the late 1960s.
'Douglas Harris, a Tulane professor, says the difference between charters and vouchers boils down to “managed competition” versus the “free market.” Susan Dynarski of the University of Michigan talks about charters’ successfully combining flexibility and accountability. Joshua Angrist of M.I.T. says, “Flexibility alone is not enough.”'
I have always thought that all public schools should be held to the accountability and flexibility of charter schools, especially in New York State. The state government has so many mandates for schools that do not allow the local school boards to use funds to suit the needs of their particular community. Even in small school districts with maybe 100 children per grade level can be organized an the elementary levels (grades K-3, 4-6) with at least two "schools within a school" with the power to organize and spend resources as needed.
I have always thought that all public schools should be held to the accountability and flexibility of charter schools, especially in New York State. The state government has so many mandates for schools that do not allow the local school boards to use funds to suit the needs of their particular community. Even in small school districts with maybe 100 children per grade level can be organized an the elementary levels (grades K-3, 4-6) with at least two "schools within a school" with the power to organize and spend resources as needed.
1
This column makes some excellent points. However it seems unlikely that Ms DeVos will listen to any of them.
She comes from a family famous for using their vast fortune to promote a rigid free-market ideology. She may have significant conflicts of interest, with murky investments in companies that profit from schools that in turn profit by sucking up taxpayer dollars through voucher programs. During her confirmation hearings she demonstrated appalling ignorance of basic government responsibilities towards students.
It has been a long time since we have had so many people in positions of power with so many conflicts of interest. Instead of draining the swamp, Mr. Trump is breeding alligators.
Dan Kravitz
She comes from a family famous for using their vast fortune to promote a rigid free-market ideology. She may have significant conflicts of interest, with murky investments in companies that profit from schools that in turn profit by sucking up taxpayer dollars through voucher programs. During her confirmation hearings she demonstrated appalling ignorance of basic government responsibilities towards students.
It has been a long time since we have had so many people in positions of power with so many conflicts of interest. Instead of draining the swamp, Mr. Trump is breeding alligators.
Dan Kravitz
9
In defense of Secretary DeVos......she inherited a hot mess of an education system. Our education system to day is nothing more than a series of rubber stamps moving children through the pipeline. If you show up you pass through.
Then you go to college and for the most part college is simply a right of social passage that you pay for the next 25 years after you finish. It is similar to our medical system which is big business first and patient care second. College is money first and student care second.
Then you go to college and for the most part college is simply a right of social passage that you pay for the next 25 years after you finish. It is similar to our medical system which is big business first and patient care second. College is money first and student care second.
Surprise to me that you use the data and offer a very constructive analysis and comments with almost no snark. Thank you for this one.
2
Secretary DeVos has one agenda, government vouchers, really discount coupons, for the middle class to attend religious schools no matter what the academic standards.
13
Just more NY Times charter school cheerleading. On the whole charters pay teachers less and administrators more (see Moskowitz, Eva) while entangling taxpayers in dodgy real estate deals that benefit investors. Entire states, such as Michigan, Florida, Arizona and California are practically lawless for charter operators to reap profits in because lawmakers have relinquished any but nominal responsibility for enforcing accountability. Which might be ok if charter schools outperformed their public school 'competition.' They don't. In study after study, on the whole, charters are seldom better and usually worse than regular public schools. After 20 years of this garbage from the New York Times maybe it's time to stop beating up on public schools and admit that equitably funding schools, that is to say, giving schools the money and resources they need to serve the students they receive is the only sane answer. We have been trying to cheap our way out of educating other people's children with fairy tales and neo-liberalism for too long. It has not worked, it is not working, instead it is time to focus on supporting our public schools. That would truly make America great again.
11
Yes, let's take a non-biased view. Two statistics jump out from the 2013 Stamford National Charter School Study. The first is there are 49,177,617 students enrolled in 99,749 public schools. 1,704,418 in the 5,068 state charters. Digging deeper we see 67,817 TPS have an average enrollment of 537, while state charters are at 336. There seems to be a finger on the scale but let us dig deeper still.
In 2013 all charter schools were trending down in math and reading, -.02 and -.03 respectively. From the report;
"The 2009 and 2013 charter school impacts on math learning gains are significantly lower than their respective TPS counterparts"
"Results for charter students in new schools mirror the 2009 findings: students
at new schools have significantly lower learning gains in reading than their TPS peers."
Charter schools do not by nature represent a cure for what ails our education system, and even with classroom sizes almost half that of TPS charters as a national average under perform public schools, while diverting much needed revenue into the hands and pockets of DeVos and others like her who exploit a national need for personal gain. Publicly funded private institutions with little oversight may offer a solution to a specific need in a specific context, but as public policy addressing our future education needs it is largely a ruse depleting an already shallow pool of resources.
http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf
In 2013 all charter schools were trending down in math and reading, -.02 and -.03 respectively. From the report;
"The 2009 and 2013 charter school impacts on math learning gains are significantly lower than their respective TPS counterparts"
"Results for charter students in new schools mirror the 2009 findings: students
at new schools have significantly lower learning gains in reading than their TPS peers."
Charter schools do not by nature represent a cure for what ails our education system, and even with classroom sizes almost half that of TPS charters as a national average under perform public schools, while diverting much needed revenue into the hands and pockets of DeVos and others like her who exploit a national need for personal gain. Publicly funded private institutions with little oversight may offer a solution to a specific need in a specific context, but as public policy addressing our future education needs it is largely a ruse depleting an already shallow pool of resources.
http://credo.stanford.edu/documents/NCSS%202013%20Final%20Draft.pdf
3
Charters may be fine if they do not subtract resources from the more standard public school system. Vouchers seem a pet project for a devious talent of Ms Devos, a closed mind. Not a good start for the most important function of society, the education of their children. And hope they'll learn to think for themselves (witness the current crop if misinformed citizens, driven by the nose by a highly ignorant, and extremely arrogant, charlatan-in-chief).
4
Comparing the DC schools is like a match between a pig with an elephant not pretty and very heavy with bureaucrat, incompetent teachers, and management.
Why must everything be privatized. Profit seeking does not belong in the Commons particularly education. It's a recipe to train ideologues not educate to think!
As the 'free' market continues to eat anyone alive who doesn't accumulate, the United States sinks further into authoritarian belligerence.
The US after WW2 had the GI Bill. Educated millions. Is the reason for the great progress of the 50's and the 60's. But that had to be stopped: there was critical thinking happening. Then Milty and the plunderers in the 70's determined there was to much democracy. Answer: make the education system Christian....you lose when your people are stupid...Trump!!!
As the 'free' market continues to eat anyone alive who doesn't accumulate, the United States sinks further into authoritarian belligerence.
The US after WW2 had the GI Bill. Educated millions. Is the reason for the great progress of the 50's and the 60's. But that had to be stopped: there was critical thinking happening. Then Milty and the plunderers in the 70's determined there was to much democracy. Answer: make the education system Christian....you lose when your people are stupid...Trump!!!
6
It is not "progresssive" to favor the interests of the teachers union and highly payed administrators over those of Children. Chikdren have only one chance for a good education.
1
The problem with fake news is obvious. The problem with weak news, the pre-cursor to fake news, is that it has enough truth in it to be credible to almost everyone, but ignores so much of the evidence to the contrary that it makes complete understanding just as difficult as the fake stuff. This article is weak news. It is opinion stated as fact. Mr. Leonhardt has pointed us to charter studies that support his view. There are plenty that contradict it. Man of them are clearer on comparing apples to apples, and they show choice offers very little benefit, especially in view of its costs. This article carries the torch for a desired outcome. Like all other weak news, it has the facade of journalism, but what it ignores is more telling than what it concludes.
2
What passes for "choice" varies widely from state to state. In some states it is nothing more than allowing students to choose schools outside of rigid boundrys in others it is a full out assault on public education. And all this talk about "parental choice" is fine.....but what about the millions of school age kids outside of traditional parent-lead families or with parents who are too dysfunctional to care. So far, in most of America, "choice" is simply an excuse to get your kids away from other children of color! Stop defending it!
5
In any rural area, or even in large counties, students with two working parents can't get to the "choice" schools anyway.
1
David, typically you have your facts straight, but, with this article, you need to do some fact checking. Let's begin with the deep American belief that education is the engine that drives our economy. In the last decade, economists agree that the relationship between more education and a robust economy is questionable at best and probably wrong ---ask the Ph.D serving you at Starbucks. I won't spend time on the claim that charters are subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight---what is the source for this claim?? In fact, that is the inherent problem with charters, by their very nature they get to establish the rules and regulations they are evaluated by, which avoid the high regulatory standards public schools are held accountable for (e.g. admission and education of special education students). I will not go on, but would add that the original intent of charter schools---experimentation---was a good idea and a needed disruption to the antiquated instructional platforms of public schools. However, the majority of charter schools have not been faithful to their mission of experimentation with progressive forms of curriculum and instruction. Instead they continue to mirror the industrial model of schooling with a lot of teacher talk, a lot of student listening, and a lot of tests on Friday---What parents see in charters in not new alternative teaching models, but, an opportunity to have their child sit next to someone in their same zip code.
2
While true, there are Ph.D.s working menial jobs, overall, despite what the silicon valley CEOs who are extremely rare would tell you, a college degree guarantees a better life, believe it or not: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/upshot/is-college-worth-it-clearly-ne...
I'm from a lower middle class family, and taught at UC, Berkeley for 23 years. Most of my colleagues there have similar backgrounds. Some are from wealthy families, but not most.
I'm from a lower middle class family, and taught at UC, Berkeley for 23 years. Most of my colleagues there have similar backgrounds. Some are from wealthy families, but not most.
To this interesting column should be added -- 1. In 28 state referenda from coast to coast from 1966 to 2014 millions of voters have rejected vouchers and similar gimmicks by 2 to 1; 2. In DeVos's Michigan voters defeated vouchers 2 to 1 in 1970, 1978 and 2000; 3. Vouchers violate taxpayers's religious liberty by forcing them to support religious institutions they would not support voluntarily; 4. Vouchers tend to fragment the student population along religious, ideological, ethnic, class, and other lines; 5. The 2014 Stanford CREDO study found that nearly 40% of charter schools were worse than regular public schools, while fewer than 20% were any better, due mainly to their selectivity; 6. The DC school voucher plan thumbs its nose at DC voters, who rejected a similar plan in 1981 by 89% to 11%; 7. Voucbers and many charter schools are part of converted efforts to undermine public education and the teaching profession. -- Edd Doerr
5
For most of America "school choice" is just an excuse to place your kids in all white schools. American schools are now more segregated than before Civil Rights reforms.
4
Except in many of America's cities with terrible traditional public schools where minority parents are heavy supporters of school choice. They flock to charters and voucher programs. There are lotteries and long waiting lists.
Of all the issues to encourage people to seriously consider having open mind about, Leonhardt chose the wrong one. My wife was feeding an abused child each morning in a closet because this little girl didn't have dinner the night before. Sadly, this is not uncommon across our country. The fact that this woman is even whimsically toying with eliminating free lunch programs as some kind of cost saving mechanism is inhumane. Even if I entertained her arguments about school funding, access and resource management, it would be pointless. She is totally incapable of appreciating why someone with a background education could possibly be open minded to her ill-informed and robotic sensibility about such a vital public service.
6
*an open mind
*in education
*in education
This whole argument ignores the desperate need for early childhood education. Far too many kindergarten children come to school unprepared for the experience. To complicate things, the teacher has to deal with children who are ready and those who are not. Charter or public is less of an issue until early childhood education is addressed. If a charter school happens to wind up with reasonably well prepared children, they are more likely to claim success. If, on the other hand, they try to serve unprepared children, their task made far more complicated. So the labels and types of education delivery is not the major issue. A good foundation during the most formative years is.
1
Thank you for noting the difference between vouchers and charters. I have found that most people who advocate for "choice" do not understand the difference. I have never understood why anyone's tax dollars should go to private and/or religious schools. I have nothing against those schools, but our tax dollars should not be used to pay for them. As someone who worked in special education, my main concern about charters is that many of them do strive to keep out special ed. students by various requirements , and those that let them in do not have the staff and resources with appropriate training to teach them. That said, I have no problem with parents having choices between public schools. Your Le Bron James analogy can sometimes be used for charters, also. In my county (DeKalb County, GA), we have some "high achievers" charters that were originally created during a desegregation order. Those schools were suddenly considered some of the best in the state because of high test scores. Well, if you take students with high test scores and put them in school together, it does two things: it raises the test scores of that school while it lowers the test scores of the schools those student left their neighborhood school to be aggregated together. at the charter. Yet, the principle of that high school was hailed for having such a high achieving school. This has been happening in our system for many years now.
5
One of the main (in my opinion) overlooked problems with charter schools is the funding formula.
It's not intuitive - the student's funding follows the student - sounds right, doesn't it?
But consider this: when, for example 5 kindergarten students from a neighborhood school district choose to attend a charter school, their funding goes with them. But, the public school they would have attended loses that funding, but cannot simply shrink to absorb the loss. That public school can't have 1 less kindergarten class (using an approximate national average class size of 20), but they've lost somewhere from $30,000 to $100,000 (this number is quite variable, as spending per student in the US ranges from $6,500 to $20,000). Multiply that by 5 or 6 grades and you're talking real money. Again, there's only so much shrinking and belt-tightening the public school can do - even as they are compelled to educate every student.
It is my sincerest wish that the money spent on vouchers and charter schools be invested in educating every child in this very rich country. What if, for example, here in MA, every child who doesn't perform well on our mandated yearly tests was evaluated for learning disabilities and then given all the necessary supports to succeed? (Amazingly this does not happen) If that was happening, perhaps parents would be happier with the education available, and there would be less demand for alternatives.
It's not intuitive - the student's funding follows the student - sounds right, doesn't it?
But consider this: when, for example 5 kindergarten students from a neighborhood school district choose to attend a charter school, their funding goes with them. But, the public school they would have attended loses that funding, but cannot simply shrink to absorb the loss. That public school can't have 1 less kindergarten class (using an approximate national average class size of 20), but they've lost somewhere from $30,000 to $100,000 (this number is quite variable, as spending per student in the US ranges from $6,500 to $20,000). Multiply that by 5 or 6 grades and you're talking real money. Again, there's only so much shrinking and belt-tightening the public school can do - even as they are compelled to educate every student.
It is my sincerest wish that the money spent on vouchers and charter schools be invested in educating every child in this very rich country. What if, for example, here in MA, every child who doesn't perform well on our mandated yearly tests was evaluated for learning disabilities and then given all the necessary supports to succeed? (Amazingly this does not happen) If that was happening, perhaps parents would be happier with the education available, and there would be less demand for alternatives.
2
'Conventional wisdom usually defines a good school as one attended by high-achieving students'
in Australia, 'top' private schools advertise that their students get top results - but - before that, they tend to select only students who already get top results - so - seems to me - it's not the school that produced the top results - it's simply that the private school excluded those who don't.
in Australia, 'top' private schools advertise that their students get top results - but - before that, they tend to select only students who already get top results - so - seems to me - it's not the school that produced the top results - it's simply that the private school excluded those who don't.
4
We could look around the world and see what education systems are doing the best. Finland comes to mind as they consistently perform the highest in both reading and math. They have no private schools, no charter schools, no standardized testing, a lot of outdoor play, no homework, well-paid and well respected teachers who are given ample time for professional development. Certainly the problems of inequity of income in the US is a factor that needs consideration - maybe adopting models that focus on the VERY young in impoverished regions (infants) and making sure they are receiving adequate care & stimulating experiences would help here in the US. The whole endless testing thing has failed - better to set higher standards for teachers.
3
Here's an observation from an almost 84 year old: how about crediting the success and/or failures of students to their homes and parent(s) maybe more than to their schools and teachers. My late husband used to talk fondly about his high school - he graduated from Phoenix Union High School in 1939 in a class of nearly 900 students - talk about class size - of which he was salutatorian. Many of the graduates went on to college or went to work, but by and large, were productive members of society. When we would drive past some of the local high schools here he would comment on the number of cars in the parking lot - full of students' cars! He said it was rare that anyone in his high school had a car to drive to school. (Not that there is anything inherently wrong with driving a car to school....) A lot of students had after school jobs, there were dress standards....you get the picture....
My two children attended private, religious, very small schools growing up, so classes were very small. Many of those same students graduated from high school with highest honors. They also had dress standards, after school jobs etc. And I worked full time.
I don't have any solutions, but it does seem that our homes have deteriorated to some degree over the years. Just sayin'!!
My two children attended private, religious, very small schools growing up, so classes were very small. Many of those same students graduated from high school with highest honors. They also had dress standards, after school jobs etc. And I worked full time.
I don't have any solutions, but it does seem that our homes have deteriorated to some degree over the years. Just sayin'!!
2
There is actually another choice, that rarely gets mentioned in the mass media, but works quite well. Here in Acton, MA (where the kids rank 3.5 years ahead of average American by 10th grade) the parents intentionally choose their child's elementary school (there are 5 elem. schools in the town). The schools compete for students and have to keep their standards and programs attractive to parents/kids. It works well because the parents have to "buy in" from the start. They get a sense of ownership without having to to leave the public school system.
3
You also have a tiny school district, as opposed to large county systems in much of the U.S. Yours is a very different situation.
1
Yes, that's true, but why shouldn't public schools "compete" with one another, a little. Friendly competition goes a long way toward setting high standards and keeping everyone on their game.
I do research on "schools of choice". In a well-controlled study, students in them perform better on a variety of "metrics" including grades, admission to four-year colleges, attitudes toward school, and sometimes test scores, compared with students in comprehensive high schools. These trends are even greater for minority students.
Interestingly, most of these schools of choice are NOT CHARTERS but public schools in districts that offer a portfolio of school types. They conduct educational "experiments" or at least offer thoughtful alternatives to the large comprehensive high school model.
Education needs more experiments that are carefully designed and monitored because they can affect students' lives. Parents and older students are in the best position to decide whether to try these new schools. They choose because they are searching for something better than the factory model that dominates large comprehensive high schools. Poor or working class parents/students and minority parents/students want schools that work for them, not a strong suit in US education.
DeVos, however, has a history of being weak in evaluation, preferring brute market-driven choice, a terrible way making change in education. Choice as a driver of school improvement only makes sense when the innovators know what they are doing and someone is evaluating it.
Interestingly, most of these schools of choice are NOT CHARTERS but public schools in districts that offer a portfolio of school types. They conduct educational "experiments" or at least offer thoughtful alternatives to the large comprehensive high school model.
Education needs more experiments that are carefully designed and monitored because they can affect students' lives. Parents and older students are in the best position to decide whether to try these new schools. They choose because they are searching for something better than the factory model that dominates large comprehensive high schools. Poor or working class parents/students and minority parents/students want schools that work for them, not a strong suit in US education.
DeVos, however, has a history of being weak in evaluation, preferring brute market-driven choice, a terrible way making change in education. Choice as a driver of school improvement only makes sense when the innovators know what they are doing and someone is evaluating it.
3
This is some Lake Wobegon thinking.
Charters’ success is the result of what financial industry calls “tranching” – if we take out the best 10% -20% from the overall pool of students, in any district, of course they’ll perform better than the rest. But you can’t keep tranching the rest and expect the same result. What you get is an educational bubble.
For the sake of argument, let’s make a simple mind experiment and imagine that overnight all US schools become “charters” (whatever that actually means).
Now answer yourself honestly: Would the education system in America suddenly be better, produce exceptional students? Would absentee parents suddenly start to care, would incompetent teachers suddenly become competent, would disinterested students suddenly become interested, would school administrators suddenly start doing their jobs? Would the poverty be eradicated, would the children’s homes be suddenly filled with books and caring parents who read to their kids every night? I thought so…
Charters are just another way of not dealing with the real societal issues and not being honest with ourselves.
Schools in America simply reflect the overall social environment, warts and all. As long as the financial inequality in this country is on the rise, so will be with the education. No charter will change that.
Charters’ success is the result of what financial industry calls “tranching” – if we take out the best 10% -20% from the overall pool of students, in any district, of course they’ll perform better than the rest. But you can’t keep tranching the rest and expect the same result. What you get is an educational bubble.
For the sake of argument, let’s make a simple mind experiment and imagine that overnight all US schools become “charters” (whatever that actually means).
Now answer yourself honestly: Would the education system in America suddenly be better, produce exceptional students? Would absentee parents suddenly start to care, would incompetent teachers suddenly become competent, would disinterested students suddenly become interested, would school administrators suddenly start doing their jobs? Would the poverty be eradicated, would the children’s homes be suddenly filled with books and caring parents who read to their kids every night? I thought so…
Charters are just another way of not dealing with the real societal issues and not being honest with ourselves.
Schools in America simply reflect the overall social environment, warts and all. As long as the financial inequality in this country is on the rise, so will be with the education. No charter will change that.
5
All of these schemes work to the extent that they allow parents to be more engaged in their children's education.
If we want a more equal and inclusive society, we must figure out how to encourage this.
In the small town in New Jersey where I used to live, the school district offered a babysitting service and bus transportation so that parents from working families could attend parent-teacher nights. Sadly, this was abandoned in favor of buying standardized programs and hiring "diversity consultants", which was justified with many fine words but was mostly about posturing and putting money into the hands of friends. It could all be measured, clearly, by the results on standardized tests...
It was around this time that talk began about starting a charter that would focus on actual education. The public schools can be their own worst enemies sometimes.
If we want a more equal and inclusive society, we must figure out how to encourage this.
In the small town in New Jersey where I used to live, the school district offered a babysitting service and bus transportation so that parents from working families could attend parent-teacher nights. Sadly, this was abandoned in favor of buying standardized programs and hiring "diversity consultants", which was justified with many fine words but was mostly about posturing and putting money into the hands of friends. It could all be measured, clearly, by the results on standardized tests...
It was around this time that talk began about starting a charter that would focus on actual education. The public schools can be their own worst enemies sometimes.
So if only charter schools work, what are we to do with the rest of the students in regular schools? Shouldn't our emphasis be on the regular school in order to do the most good?
5
Bingo. Creating good schools should not damage all the other schools.
There is yet a fourth choice not mentioned: public choice schools.
One example are schools in District 2 in NYC. There are many public schools with unique pedagogical approaches whom are allowed to experiment within the system. They are accountable to similar standards as other public schools, but with some requirements waived. Parents choose to apply to these schools and the schools have screening processes not based purely on academics. Many of these schools have very good record of graduation and college successes. This is ONE way to effectively combine Choice and the Public Education framework.
One example are schools in District 2 in NYC. There are many public schools with unique pedagogical approaches whom are allowed to experiment within the system. They are accountable to similar standards as other public schools, but with some requirements waived. Parents choose to apply to these schools and the schools have screening processes not based purely on academics. Many of these schools have very good record of graduation and college successes. This is ONE way to effectively combine Choice and the Public Education framework.
Agreed, vouchers are a wreck. But why charters? (I had no kids,
so I'm interested in the issue more as it pertains to problems of
governance.) I understand the notion of a single charter in a
region acting as a laboratory for improving local educational
policy. But a system of multiple charters operating in parallel
to existing public schools is illogical, because it can't last
indefinitely. Either the public school system will raise itself
to the purported quality level of the charter system or it won't.
If it does, there will be no further need for the charter system.
If it doesn't, there will be permanent inequality, which is
inexcusable. Therefore, the only logical way to proceed is to
apply all the necessary resources to the public system in the
first place, no Rube Goldberg contraptions needed.
so I'm interested in the issue more as it pertains to problems of
governance.) I understand the notion of a single charter in a
region acting as a laboratory for improving local educational
policy. But a system of multiple charters operating in parallel
to existing public schools is illogical, because it can't last
indefinitely. Either the public school system will raise itself
to the purported quality level of the charter system or it won't.
If it does, there will be no further need for the charter system.
If it doesn't, there will be permanent inequality, which is
inexcusable. Therefore, the only logical way to proceed is to
apply all the necessary resources to the public system in the
first place, no Rube Goldberg contraptions needed.
4
It is not a mystery--we have known for a long time what improves education for our children: small class sizes, paying excellent teachers good salaries, and, last but not least--a supportive home life that prioritizes education.
Add to that: a later start time of the school day for adolescents.
Yet for some reason we spend millions (billions) of dollars doing everything but....
Add to that: a later start time of the school day for adolescents.
Yet for some reason we spend millions (billions) of dollars doing everything but....
3
Of course Ms. DeVos is an ideologue. That's been the only reason for her interest in education and politics. Set aside her rigid belief system (and her belief everyone else should have to follow it) and tell me one thing about her educational philosophy. Never mind, you might as well ask Mr. Trump why we fought the Civil War
The real question is to support charters that can do things that traditional public education may not be able to while still supporting public schools as the method that can do the most good for the most people when properly managed.
The real question is to support charters that can do things that traditional public education may not be able to while still supporting public schools as the method that can do the most good for the most people when properly managed.
2
Mr. Leonhardt doesn't consider the needs of rural students, where vouchers may often be used at both private schools and out of district public schools. That fact argues not for a single, centrally imposed solution, but for the delegation of policy-making to State and Municipal authorities and voters on the local level.
The arrogance of a view that what works (or doesn't) for the District of Columbia will obviously work (or won't) for a small village in Vermont or Alabama is the among the biggest challenges facing our politicians and policy makers and is, rather than racism or Nationalism, the principal reason for President Trump's election. There is a desperate desire on the part of many Americans to take back the ability to determine public policy from a large class of unelected civil servants, non-governmental organizations and pundits like Mr. Leonhardt. It is time for us to have greater confidence in the ability of the American people to govern themselves both at the grass-roots level and through our representative democratic institutions. Someone will always be disappointed in the result, that happens in a democracy, but we must have long-term confidence in the common sense of the common person to elect representatives and make local decisions that are best for their own families and communities.
The arrogance of a view that what works (or doesn't) for the District of Columbia will obviously work (or won't) for a small village in Vermont or Alabama is the among the biggest challenges facing our politicians and policy makers and is, rather than racism or Nationalism, the principal reason for President Trump's election. There is a desperate desire on the part of many Americans to take back the ability to determine public policy from a large class of unelected civil servants, non-governmental organizations and pundits like Mr. Leonhardt. It is time for us to have greater confidence in the ability of the American people to govern themselves both at the grass-roots level and through our representative democratic institutions. Someone will always be disappointed in the result, that happens in a democracy, but we must have long-term confidence in the common sense of the common person to elect representatives and make local decisions that are best for their own families and communities.
I would like to see an article giving statistics regarding how the demise of Catholic Schools has impacted on the numbers and resources for Public Schools. In the past, through the 1960's and into the 1970's, almost every little town with a Catholic Church also had a Catholic School. In larger cities, there were often several Catholic Schools in a neighborhood of several Catholic Churches. People had a choice to send their children to Catholic School or to Public School. Catholic Churches funded their own schools and did not get a penny from the state. Catholics in general were poor immigrants, yet they found the money to support their schools. With the flight of immigrants to the suburbs the Churches and Schools went also and the ethnic flavor of the Churches and Schools was traded for the white middle-class dream, yet, many Catholic Schools were maintained. With the demise of Catholic attendance at church services and the lower reproductive rate among all U.S. Citizens in general, donations dropped & maintenance of schools became more difficult. Some congregations reached out to the community of non-Catholics and invited them to send their children, but, for the most part, it seems, U.S. Citizens would rather buy plastic toys for their children than to pay a fee to educate them. Many, many Catholic schools closed. If parents want "choice" in education, they can build schools like the Catholics did. There is no reason to take money away from Public Schools.
1
As in all the articles pushing charters as a success, the crucial sleight of hand used is when the best performing charter schools are presented as proof that "charters work". Sorry, that's an F for cherry picking data. The vast majority of charters do no better than comparable public schools, and some do much worse - as you'd expect. This proves the critics 100% right: charterization is a process that leads to no educational improvement on average, while providing vast opportunities for diverting public money into private pockets via any number if scams. (The assertion that "most" charters operate under strong oversight could only be made by an elite journalist who doesn't get out much, thinks California - only the most populous state - doesn't exist and believes Pennsylvania - another charter disaster zone - is a place seen only from the Acela windows.)
15
Did the teachers union hand pick those similar students, give vouchers a chance to work. Then we will get an independent investigation, I know a nice Russian company...
1
Let's make a new goal: every public school a charter school.
Both are still wrong because they were designed to break up ethnic groups in a million pieces ( exaggeration intended) don't let this idea to be praised or implemented
2
You know what "works"? Respect for education. Why is it never, ever pointed out that blue states have much better schools? No mystery here. Respect education, fund it, and give teachers more respect than serial killers. There is no comparison between education in Massachusetts and Alabama.
Yes she is an ideologue. She is not interested in evidence. In Michigan she made it nearly impossible to even collect evidence because she did not want to know how Charter schools performed.
21
If our public schools have problems, why not just fix the public schools?
On another note, we fund public schools mostly by local property taxes.
This means the poorest neighborhoods get the least funding.
Compare spending per pupil in the South Side of Chicago with the rich Chicago suburb of Barrington.
On another note, we fund public schools mostly by local property taxes.
This means the poorest neighborhoods get the least funding.
Compare spending per pupil in the South Side of Chicago with the rich Chicago suburb of Barrington.
23
I understand that.
Do you think next time someone is chosen for Secretary of Education the qualifications could at least be minimally a college degree in education?
Betsy DeVos does not even have a college degree in education!
How about someone that does more than push us taxpayers into a corner to pay for vouchers for churches - in the name of parochial schools that are not meeting scholastic standards?
We know Republicans don't exactly accept science and scientific research, but how about at least for kids' sake waking up and seeing that Betsy's church schools are not advantageous academically, proven by data. Of course that data never goes public.
They don't have to publicize their testing data nor do they have to provide services for disabled kids like public schools do. And parochial, private teacher's teaching credentials have no uniform standards like public schools demand.
You know, those public schools that Christians like Betsy DeVos and her cronies
defund?
She's all talk and stealing our taxpayer money for her own private cause. Bring the kids to church schools and hopefully they will produce more pseudoChristians the DeVos way - on our bucks.
Let the churches pass the plate for scholarship money for their schools if they want more kids attending!
(And by the way, we sent our kids to parochial grade school - and paid every penny of it on our own then meager incomes - and would never have wanted our community's public schools defunded)
Betsy DeVos does not even have a college degree in education!
How about someone that does more than push us taxpayers into a corner to pay for vouchers for churches - in the name of parochial schools that are not meeting scholastic standards?
We know Republicans don't exactly accept science and scientific research, but how about at least for kids' sake waking up and seeing that Betsy's church schools are not advantageous academically, proven by data. Of course that data never goes public.
They don't have to publicize their testing data nor do they have to provide services for disabled kids like public schools do. And parochial, private teacher's teaching credentials have no uniform standards like public schools demand.
You know, those public schools that Christians like Betsy DeVos and her cronies
defund?
She's all talk and stealing our taxpayer money for her own private cause. Bring the kids to church schools and hopefully they will produce more pseudoChristians the DeVos way - on our bucks.
Let the churches pass the plate for scholarship money for their schools if they want more kids attending!
(And by the way, we sent our kids to parochial grade school - and paid every penny of it on our own then meager incomes - and would never have wanted our community's public schools defunded)
14
I have another modest proposal: How about listening to the teachers in the schools? Anyone who wants to know how a campaign is going listens to the troops, not the generals. American educational policies are being formulated by the Lord Kitcheners of our political system, including Ms. DeVos.
18
Why not apply what works so well in charter schools to all traditional schools?
6
In Atlanta, Georgia, to improve schools we have to fight the teachers union and a very large public school administration and a school board.
Even with exposed widespread cheating by teachers and administrators, the idea of "fixing" schools cannot get consensus. The responsibility is tossed around like a hot potato. Authority and power is protected by the incumbents.
Even with exposed widespread cheating by teachers and administrators, the idea of "fixing" schools cannot get consensus. The responsibility is tossed around like a hot potato. Authority and power is protected by the incumbents.
Yeah, their selectivity.
2
Mr. Leonhardt has penned a thoughtful and interesting argument for examining the charter schools...if the year was 2007. There was a time for debating voucher-supported schools versus voucher-free vouchers (supported by some other undisclosed revenue stream), but 2017 isn't it. Betsy DeVos is not a normal education secretary, and for Mr. Leonhardt to voice any suggestion of this at the end of his piece is an act of prayer, or self-delusion.
In the Trump era, money talks and raw power is used bluntly. The Education Secretary is a true believer with lots of family money, a for-profit agenda, and no education credentials. To pretend otherwise, either by ignoring these facts or by pretending to do an analysis independent of this context, is a disservice to the readers of the New York Times. I noticed that Detroit, Betsy DeVos' personal laboratory for charter reform, was left off of the list of your successful charters, by the way. There she instituted for-profit charters that failed students, while operating virtually unchecked by laissez-faire oversight at the state level.
I think Mr. Leonhardt's earlier column about charter schools that adopted strict accountability with robust support was a much better entry on this topic, with fewer errors of omission. I would recommend the recent long-format article on Betsy DeVos and charter schools published by The Atlantic for an example of the kind of reporting we need today with the current batch of Trump's flunkies at the helm.
In the Trump era, money talks and raw power is used bluntly. The Education Secretary is a true believer with lots of family money, a for-profit agenda, and no education credentials. To pretend otherwise, either by ignoring these facts or by pretending to do an analysis independent of this context, is a disservice to the readers of the New York Times. I noticed that Detroit, Betsy DeVos' personal laboratory for charter reform, was left off of the list of your successful charters, by the way. There she instituted for-profit charters that failed students, while operating virtually unchecked by laissez-faire oversight at the state level.
I think Mr. Leonhardt's earlier column about charter schools that adopted strict accountability with robust support was a much better entry on this topic, with fewer errors of omission. I would recommend the recent long-format article on Betsy DeVos and charter schools published by The Atlantic for an example of the kind of reporting we need today with the current batch of Trump's flunkies at the helm.
7
School choice would be a good concept if the bar for education wasn't set so low.
1
Read to your children stories with enthusiasm starting at as early age as possible.
See the results of the Frankish Population Study in Canada about education and chronic disease
Education that stimulates imagination and the ability to put oneself "in the story" is a duty of all those responsible for the upbringing of children.
Child to child reading also can be valuable but does not absolve parenteral responsibility.
Imagination sparked ----> Innovation driven -----> Benefits to all of Society and The Civic Order.
See the results of the Frankish Population Study in Canada about education and chronic disease
Education that stimulates imagination and the ability to put oneself "in the story" is a duty of all those responsible for the upbringing of children.
Child to child reading also can be valuable but does not absolve parenteral responsibility.
Imagination sparked ----> Innovation driven -----> Benefits to all of Society and The Civic Order.
2
What if the parents don't know how to read or don't speak English?
Your description of charters in Texas is wrong. Texas charters have been shown to perform at significantly lower levels then public schools.
12
Assign a full-time reporter to cover what Betsy DeVos is doing to our public education system. Keep score on how charter schools are doing compared to public schools. Don't let any Cabinet Secretary get away with anything that harms our education system and the future of our children.
9
I graduated from one of the most exclusive prep schools in the country in the 1970's, and the discussion then is no different than now. If a school, any school, is allowed to select the students that qualify, but can also expel students who do not then work out, then that school will flourish. There is no magic here. Many charter schools have a finely refined student body of hard working, extremely academically motivated students. Not many slackers or troublemakers, if any get in. And if they do slip by and get in they are often driven off in time, and passed back to the Publics.
16
The real motivation behind vouchers is not better education, but to enable Christians to send their kids to a private school where prayer and the bible are emphasized. DeVos believes that secularism is what ails society and it is her sacred charge to remedy that.
14
Can we stop pretending that school vouchers are anything but a ploy from conservatives to get public funding for religious schools in order to indoctrinate children in non-religious areas into Christianity?
9
This is seriously faulty reasoning:
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
It is easy for a school to significantly increase test scores without making any improvements in teaching. Simply eliminate the bottom 10% of the students. Students in that bottom 10% are very likely to have parents who have no interest in doing the extra work required to enroll their children in a charter school. So charter schools get this advantage automatically, even if they "accept all comers". The population of comers is not the same as the population of students. With a little more effort, charter schools can compound this advantage by ostracizing and pressuring the parents of low-performing students until the students leave. This behavior has been well documented, for example, in the case of the "Success Academy" run by Eva Moskowitz: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-s...
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
It is easy for a school to significantly increase test scores without making any improvements in teaching. Simply eliminate the bottom 10% of the students. Students in that bottom 10% are very likely to have parents who have no interest in doing the extra work required to enroll their children in a charter school. So charter schools get this advantage automatically, even if they "accept all comers". The population of comers is not the same as the population of students. With a little more effort, charter schools can compound this advantage by ostracizing and pressuring the parents of low-performing students until the students leave. This behavior has been well documented, for example, in the case of the "Success Academy" run by Eva Moskowitz: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/nyregion/at-success-academy-charter-s...
David Leonhardt has read a few credible studies about the impact of charter schools on student achievement, but he needs to dig further in his reading about how these school operate and all the factors that contribute to their supposed effectiveness. This statement, for instance, is just flat out wrong: "Local officials decide which charters can open and expand." Most often, state boards or independent charter granting entities given permission by the state make the decisions to open and close charters, not local officials. Even when local officials have the authority to deny a charter application, or they seek to close a low-performing charter, they are frequently over-ruled by appointed boards set up by state officials. Leonhardt is wrong on this point as well: "Many charters are open to all comers." Numerous studies have found charters tend to serve lower percentages of students who have disabilities or whose first language isn't English. I'm sure Leonhardt can find the exceptional charter here or there, but the fact remains there are no regulatory or statutory requirements that prevent a charter school operator from saying to a family, "Your child isn't a good fit for our school." Charter schools may have once been a good idea, but they've become an uncontrollable, parallel school system that bleeds resources from public schools while creating opportunities for third-party entities to skim money from the system without returning any benefit to students and taxpayers.
13
Leave the bad schools because all those bad kids go there with bad teachers. How about teaching people that social responsibility is the best "choice" for yourself and others?
3
The overuse of the word "many" as applied to charter schools indicates that the writer has no idea what the actual data says. It ignores anything that challenges the automatic assumption that anything that isn't classic public education is a good thing.
1
Mr. Leonhardt presents a false narrative- that charter schools are public schools and that "choice" is in the best interests of the students and parents. Charters are not held to the same accountability as traditional public schools when it comes to academic performance or finances. Charters are "public" in that they are taxpayer funded- that's it! In New Orleans, parents have recently called for a return to local control and want their public schools back. In fact, students in the Recovery School District, based on a 2015 study, performed worse on standardized Math and English Exams than their counterparts in traditional public schools when a variety of factors were considered such as race, income level and students who qualify for special education classes. In Ohio, a state with a plethora of charters, there is one scandal after another, with public monies being pilfered by charter operators who pocket the money and deprive the students. In N.Y., operators such as Eva Moskowitz, "counsel out" those students that may be "trouble." Her "Success Academies" have teacher turnover rates that often approach 70%-80%. She and her husband each make $500,000. Studies have shown that over 90% of the public like their traditional public schools. The concept of the charter as a laboratory where experimentation could take place has been supplanted test prep factories backed by hedge funds seeking to maximize their profits and returns. DeVos won't learn- I hope Leonhardt will.
3
You state:
Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. And the schools’ benefits extend beyond test scores to more meaningful metrics, like college graduation.
Many charters are superficially open to "all comers". However almost none have any special education services, and those students are "referred" back to the public schools. Also many have parental volunteering requirements, eliminating many lower income families whose adults often have severe time constraints.
Not a level comparison.
Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. And the schools’ benefits extend beyond test scores to more meaningful metrics, like college graduation.
Many charters are superficially open to "all comers". However almost none have any special education services, and those students are "referred" back to the public schools. Also many have parental volunteering requirements, eliminating many lower income families whose adults often have severe time constraints.
Not a level comparison.
4
The problem with Charters is that universal education, which the United States has long been committed to, is a zero-sum game. Every charter school, successful or not, denudes funding for traditional schools.
Because they need it to launch new programs and build new school infrastructure, many charter schools receive from states and districts more than their share of funding when measured on a per-pupil basis, so they should...on average...produce better educational results. Many do and are better schools, but...on average across all states...the charters' educational results are no better than the average results of traditional schools in the aggregate. Why is this?
It's probably because the original mission of charter schools has been hijacked by for-profit and special interest (including religious) management groups.
The original idea of charter schools was to provide a small group of "experimental" schools freedom from some bureaucratic oversight and restrictions in order to allow evaluation of new approaches to education and to find successful innovations that could be scaled up and used to improve the regular public schools.
Experimentation to improve universal education is no longer the focus of charter schools.
The focus has become competition, and this largely means competition to attract and enroll students, rich or poor, who have the highest capacities for success as measured (mainly) by standardized tests and graduation rates.
Because they need it to launch new programs and build new school infrastructure, many charter schools receive from states and districts more than their share of funding when measured on a per-pupil basis, so they should...on average...produce better educational results. Many do and are better schools, but...on average across all states...the charters' educational results are no better than the average results of traditional schools in the aggregate. Why is this?
It's probably because the original mission of charter schools has been hijacked by for-profit and special interest (including religious) management groups.
The original idea of charter schools was to provide a small group of "experimental" schools freedom from some bureaucratic oversight and restrictions in order to allow evaluation of new approaches to education and to find successful innovations that could be scaled up and used to improve the regular public schools.
Experimentation to improve universal education is no longer the focus of charter schools.
The focus has become competition, and this largely means competition to attract and enroll students, rich or poor, who have the highest capacities for success as measured (mainly) by standardized tests and graduation rates.
3
I will believe charter schools work when students are assigned randomly (ie, by address/districting), rather than the effort of the families, just like the public schools. Otherwise you are still skimming the cream because charter school kids are coming from families who have the resources, motivation and background to,value education. So you end up with the least disadvantaged kids left behind in the public schools, who are now even more starved for funding, rinse, repeat.
All this is a smokescreen to break the teacher's union and wriggle out of unfunded retiree pension and healthcare benefits so the wealthy pay less tax. Why else would the wealthy (Walton and DeVos families, etc.) support it? Come now, you really thought it was philanthropy?
All this is a smokescreen to break the teacher's union and wriggle out of unfunded retiree pension and healthcare benefits so the wealthy pay less tax. Why else would the wealthy (Walton and DeVos families, etc.) support it? Come now, you really thought it was philanthropy?
3
The best solution is to eliminate the Department of Education. Other than redistributing funds, what else do they do?
Go to their website and read.
2
@Cowboy: "Go to their website and read."
I did, and none of that actually needs to be performed at the federal level. Unless you can find somewhere in the Constitution that either states or implies the federal government's responsibility for education.
I did, and none of that actually needs to be performed at the federal level. Unless you can find somewhere in the Constitution that either states or implies the federal government's responsibility for education.
When I grew up as a Catholic, I attended only Catholic schools. That was my parents choice and they paid for it even though we were poor. It was the right thing then and its the right thing now. We need to continue to strengthen our public schools and support them. Let the rich go to the other schools which sound no better than public. I would guess since Trump picked her, that DeVos is an ideologue committed to prior beliefs regardless of facts. Lets just hope she doesnt completely ruin our public school system.
1
I'm not qualified to comment intelligently enough to comment but I have questions such as funding. I've been told that if a child from a public school system wants to attend a Charter School and the cost is, for example, $8000 dollars, the public school has to forfeit their fee per student of $4000 paid by the state and makeup the other $4000 dollars from their local school budgets. This is a win win for Charter Schools. I fail to reason why if this be the case. Once I get past the economics and the damage it lays upon the public system in the way of hurting sports programs, music departments and all building reparis, etc., I will be able to rationalize the separation that took so long and tons of grief years ago when schools and busing were desegregated. I'll try and rationalize what goes around comes around.
We are the richest industrialized country on the planet GDP / capita.
Why do we have these problems and countries like Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, etc. do not?
And they have government schools.
Why do we have these problems and countries like Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, etc. do not?
And they have government schools.
1
For me is whether we still believe in Public Education. I fear that for many the answer is no. Whether money goes to for-profit Charters, or for-profit usually religious schools, makes no difference in the long run. It will kill public education. Which will bring us back to the 19th Century.
For some, and I believe this includes Ms. DeVos, the only thing needed in school is learning RRR, and the 4th R, religion, usually of a white-evangelical-christian variety. Once achieved we will have created a nation of preachers, and little else.
For some, and I believe this includes Ms. DeVos, the only thing needed in school is learning RRR, and the 4th R, religion, usually of a white-evangelical-christian variety. Once achieved we will have created a nation of preachers, and little else.
Last year, in Massachusetts, we had a referendum to increase the number of charter schools, which I voted against despite strong evidence that charter schools have produced good results here. Why? Because I was not convinced by the pro charter school side that our traditional public schools would not suffer with the expansion, and because I believe in traditional public school education, not this quasi-public school hybrid known as a charter school. Our twenty-year experiment with charters is a success, so now it’s time to apply the lessons learned to our public school system, not add more charters.
The premise for this constant debate about charter schools vs. vouchers vs. other piecemeal ideas for better educating our children is that the government can’t do education right. I’m rather sick of hearing that. Other governments seem to get it right—PISA test results for European and Asian countries with strong government control of public education show their children routinely kicking our behinds. Why not study how they’re doing it? Yes, charters seem to be better than vouchers, but you know what seems to work best? Government-funded public education.
Most Americans can agree that an education is “the most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards.” If there is any one thing the U. S. Government should spend money on, big time, it’s public education. This quasi free market nonsense leaves me cold.
The premise for this constant debate about charter schools vs. vouchers vs. other piecemeal ideas for better educating our children is that the government can’t do education right. I’m rather sick of hearing that. Other governments seem to get it right—PISA test results for European and Asian countries with strong government control of public education show their children routinely kicking our behinds. Why not study how they’re doing it? Yes, charters seem to be better than vouchers, but you know what seems to work best? Government-funded public education.
Most Americans can agree that an education is “the most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards.” If there is any one thing the U. S. Government should spend money on, big time, it’s public education. This quasi free market nonsense leaves me cold.
3
If the voucher system becomes law of the land , does that mean we can see average tests scores from all charter schools to the public? We dont see them now!
It seems charter schools look good only in areas, such as inner cities, that have bad public schools.
2
Voucher have never been about opportunities for disadvantaged children...oh my bleeding heart! These wonderful folks like Betsy DeVos care so deeply for those kiddos....NOT! Vouchers has always been about stealing tax dollars to give already financially capable wealthy people a better deal while robbing from and undermining public schools. The reason private schools occasionally perform better than public schools is the peer pool effect. Who attends private schools? Children from advantaged homes who spend Spring Break with their parents in museums or traveling through Europe. Students who faced admissions, interviews, and submitted resumes to be accepted. Parents who pay dearly and are therefore deeply invested in that school and their child's education. The peer pool in public schools is a mix - many families do care deeply and many provide similar advantages. Many can't afford to pay for their child's lunches and work three jobs to pay the rent - they may care deeply about their child's education but they don't have the intellectual resources - the background of academic experiences - to support them and don't have the time to work with them if they did. Quit beating up on public schools! They constitute our most fundamental means of fulfilling America's dream - giving every person the hope of having a better life.
1
I am not generally a fan of the NYT opinion pieces. But I was hoping that David's article might actually lead to constructive discussion about vouchers, charters and our educational system. So far all I have read here are the usual arguments supporting long held beliefs with very little desire for open discussion. It isn't just about money, or teacher training, or testing, or choice. The single most important educational success factor is constructive parental involvement with their childrens education. With that the format for delivering the material is irrelevant.
This column is exactly right. But DeVos and her allies prefer vouchers that allow parents with or without financial need to enjoy subsidized access to private, often religious, schools, free of any regulation or orversight of performance.
1
David, I admire your open-mindedness on complex issues, and agree that our leaders need to be open to re-examining their positions (although it seems their personal agendas may prevent that from happening...sigh).
But I take exception to the idea that more immigration by educated workers will be a solution to the inequality problem in this country.
I am a displaced IT worker with a Masters Degree in Computer Science whose job was outsourced to India in 2015. I am not old enough for full social security benefits, but I am having one heck of a time finding a job - any job...even one that pays just a fraction of what I was making! Do you how many well unemployed, educated, mature workers (mature these days is anyone over the age of 50!) there are in this country? We really do not need any more H-1B visa holders!!! Let's employ Americans first. After all, we are the ones who are paying the property taxes, state taxes and federal taxes that support our education, medicaid and medicare systems. If they need us to pay for all of this, then we need to have jobs!
But I take exception to the idea that more immigration by educated workers will be a solution to the inequality problem in this country.
I am a displaced IT worker with a Masters Degree in Computer Science whose job was outsourced to India in 2015. I am not old enough for full social security benefits, but I am having one heck of a time finding a job - any job...even one that pays just a fraction of what I was making! Do you how many well unemployed, educated, mature workers (mature these days is anyone over the age of 50!) there are in this country? We really do not need any more H-1B visa holders!!! Let's employ Americans first. After all, we are the ones who are paying the property taxes, state taxes and federal taxes that support our education, medicaid and medicare systems. If they need us to pay for all of this, then we need to have jobs!
Many charters are open to all. Many? How many? What happens when all the seats are full? Charters that aren't open to all are PRIVATE schools funded on the public's dime. I don't pay taxes to fund private schools.
2
In NYC we have a charter school system that runs several schools called Success Academy. Yes, it is true that the Success Academy accepts students from the general population, including special education students. However, this article incorrectly implies that these charter schools retain special needs students because the Success Academy in NYC does not. Excellent reporting over the years by the NYT has found that the Success Academy routinely pushes out academically and behaviorally challenged students so that graduation rates and later success in college matriculation is based on only the best and the brightest - making the ex-politician and her wealthy donors look good in the public's eye. I wish the author had taken into account the fact the public school are obligated to educate all students, not just the ones who are easily educated because they speak English, have no learning disabilities and are not emotionally scarred by home and city life. Maybe it is time to stop this nonsense and simply say that we, as a society, have failed to give public schools the respect and money it needs to educate all children. A good place to continue reforming public schools would be to require a high level of teaching competence among all educators, an advanced degree and a salary that matches the high level of skill that good teaching demands.
One major omission in this analysis is the ways in which charters are, in many municipalities, contributing to an already alarming and growing race-based re-segregation of education.
1
Bravo David Leonhardt. Your excellent analysis reminds me that John V. Lindsay was a supporter of charter schools when the idea was much newer.
My daughter was raised in a large city in New Jersey. She was very good with math. My father and grandfather were public school teachers. When my daughter reached eighth grade we visited our local public high school. The security measures were intimidating and they had not offered advanced math in years, due to low demand. We were thrilled that a math and technology charter school opened that year in our country and she entered as part of the second graduating class. There were transportation issues, but she received a great education and the school had to meet the same requirements as any public high school in the area.
This is an important argument. But there is context to even the dichotomy between vouchers and charters. My children attended both an urban Charter and an urban public school and got a solid education both places. And I have been a principal in a public school. Proponents of school choice in our area advocate for it as long as children don't choose to leave the City unless they are enrolled in a private school. Four of America's top hundred schools border Rochester but those district only take in a a hundred or so city students per year and the choose them.
And Charters are free to suspend children who do not meet their guidelines on any number of criteria. We in the public schools then take those kids back and do our best to work with them.
There are some fine Charters who work with children and just as importantly the adults who work with them. But there are also some who want it both ways and provide limited professional development for teachers and principals, who are expected to work 12 hours a day. The middle ground is there somewhere.
And Charters are free to suspend children who do not meet their guidelines on any number of criteria. We in the public schools then take those kids back and do our best to work with them.
There are some fine Charters who work with children and just as importantly the adults who work with them. But there are also some who want it both ways and provide limited professional development for teachers and principals, who are expected to work 12 hours a day. The middle ground is there somewhere.
I am on the Board of a public charter school in Kent WA. Despite lower funding, and lawsuits by the teachers unions, and a higher fraction of SpEd, ESL and FRL students, the students are learning more (per standardized tests) and the parents are happy with student progress. I think the flexibility and accountability factors are key, as you note. We also have very motivated teachers. My hope for the tiny charter school population in WA is that it can serve as an innovation laboratory for the rest of our schools. Thank you for your balanced account of the evidence.
1
I have more than 35 years of experience working in both private and public schools in Canada and the U.S. The problem is very simple but I assume the solution very complex. Private schools in both countries are similar. They are well- staffed as it is desirable for many teachers to work in well- equipped schools where students must comply or you are out. They generally attract students from affluent families, the exception for highly talented scholarship students. Public schools differ greatly. In Canada schools in low income areas are more strongly supported financially by the generally large school district that can re- distribute tax income to lower achievement gaps for students with more challenges. In the U.S. There are many more small school districts, some rich with high achievement, some poor barely surviving. Why does Canada do better on international testing? It is the efforts to even the opportunity for all students. It is not perfect but it is better than allowing the neighbourhood you live in to be the greatest determination of academic success. Charter schools may be successful in some cases but will not solve this achievement gap. Perhaps the U.S. Should examine other countries with similar demograhics and culture to learn best practices.
1
"Charter" covers a huge range. Charters can be as horrible as for-profit colleges, only inflicted on much younger students, or they can be essentially themed public schools like magnet schools. It would be wise to distinguish when deciding what to support. No profit-making enterprise ever put anything before profit, and never will.
2
A lot of education advocates confuse correlation with causation when it comes to charters - maybe because their salary depends on them doing so.
Charters are basically schools for self-selected families who care enough about their kids' educations to become committed advocates for their kids - and that kind of support is a huge marker for academic success.
Nothing wrong with that individually. But charters, I think, were originally set up as labs where new policies and approaches could be worked on and then applied to the area's public schools. It has snowballed from there.
You want to test ideas in a special school? Fine - but can we please just first get school funding where it should be, shrink class size, train the teachers and pay them what they deserve?
Charters are basically schools for self-selected families who care enough about their kids' educations to become committed advocates for their kids - and that kind of support is a huge marker for academic success.
Nothing wrong with that individually. But charters, I think, were originally set up as labs where new policies and approaches could be worked on and then applied to the area's public schools. It has snowballed from there.
You want to test ideas in a special school? Fine - but can we please just first get school funding where it should be, shrink class size, train the teachers and pay them what they deserve?
2
Thank you for this article.
While charter school have a more limited use in rural or spread-out suburban areas, in more densely populated cities they've become a lifeline for so many of us. This is difficult for some readers to take in because of a widespread misinformation campaign against charter schools that has been run for well over a decade. However, now the charter system is mature enough for the positive evidence to truly come to light in many studies.
Charter school success can be scaled up, and can be transferred to government-run schools. However, this would involve very hard work and sacrifices for people working in the district school system, and we don't have evidence yet that they are willing to take the hard road and adopt some of the excellent practices that are used in the strongest of the charter schools.
While charter school have a more limited use in rural or spread-out suburban areas, in more densely populated cities they've become a lifeline for so many of us. This is difficult for some readers to take in because of a widespread misinformation campaign against charter schools that has been run for well over a decade. However, now the charter system is mature enough for the positive evidence to truly come to light in many studies.
Charter school success can be scaled up, and can be transferred to government-run schools. However, this would involve very hard work and sacrifices for people working in the district school system, and we don't have evidence yet that they are willing to take the hard road and adopt some of the excellent practices that are used in the strongest of the charter schools.
2
Please tell us what these excellent practices are.
Distinguishing between vouchers and charters is important...But it's also important to clarify that most of America has had 'choice' long before charters ever existed (because where one lives determines which school catchment zones one lives in). There's also choice as Leonhardt intends it where I live (Nebraska), although we have no charters. Instead, as long as there is room and students have a means to get there, students can 'opt in' to other public schools. Last I checked about half of Omaha high school students attended public high schools outside their home catchment zone and more than a third did so in Lincoln.
Charters can be great (I used to send my daughter to one when we lived in Rhode Island), but all of them only get an enrollment if they convince parents that there is something wrong with the local traditional public school. Of course, sometimes indeed there are problems. But we need to acknowledge that the existence of charters supports a discourse that has to problematize the traditional public schools. There is real hazard in that.
Charters can be great (I used to send my daughter to one when we lived in Rhode Island), but all of them only get an enrollment if they convince parents that there is something wrong with the local traditional public school. Of course, sometimes indeed there are problems. But we need to acknowledge that the existence of charters supports a discourse that has to problematize the traditional public schools. There is real hazard in that.
I am an avid reader of information about charter schools and public education. Separating charters from vouchers seems an act of sophistry that muddles any sober analysis of the impact of charters on public schools. Where we live, there are no charter schools because of the affluence of the county. My only second hand personal experience with charters is the one my granddaughter attends. More students apply than can be admitted and my granddaughter won a lottery for admission. My daughter informs me that parents have to ask the state Board of Education for a copy if they want to see the financial statements of the charter school. It would be dishonest to not note that the aims of many charter school advocates in Ohio are not purely the best education for students. There is also the political aim of crippling the teacher's union.
1
It hardly seems fair to compare charters that have been around for several years (and outperforming the regular public schools) against a voucher program that is just getting off the ground after a single year. Parents who are unhappy with the school they used a voucher on will no doubt pick a better school next year -- since they now have the freedom to choose.
The problem here in Ohio, and I suspect elsewhere, is that the major operators of charter schools are the state's major contributors to state elected officials. ECOT (the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow), a major online "educator" and primary funder of GOP candidates, cannot verify the amount of time that its students spend online; it has in fact asked the state for a separate set of accountability standards from those that other schools are held to. In the face of bad publicity, ECOT spends millions of dollars on TV ads to promote good PR in the face of recent investigations rather than to attract students. The state's largest operators/sponsors of charter schools have been found to be involved in self-dealing, buying or leasing facilities and supplies from companies owned by charter school operators. Numerous charter schools in Ohio have been the subject of lawsuits and clawback efforts as a result of misfeasance, malfeasance, or outright fraud. It's true that some charter schools are effective, but structuring education to make profits is as misguided as a health care system that owes more to shareholders in medical corporations than to patients. The entire structure must be held financially and educationally accountable.
1
The study of the DC OSP study measured "how the offer of the
scholarship and the actual use of the scholarship
affected student and family outcomes in the first
school year after applying to the OSP and entering the
lottery." They're comparing kids who change schools (use the voucher) to those who don't (refused or weren't offered). Changing schools is notoriously tough on kids. Shouldn't that have been factored in?
scholarship and the actual use of the scholarship
affected student and family outcomes in the first
school year after applying to the OSP and entering the
lottery." They're comparing kids who change schools (use the voucher) to those who don't (refused or weren't offered). Changing schools is notoriously tough on kids. Shouldn't that have been factored in?
I think every parent wants to provide the best education possible for their children to give them an edge in an increasingly globalized world where workers already have to compete on knowledge and information. Not everyone is a parent, but even non-breeders can appreciate the value of education today. Education is the silver bullet, and we simply do not provide equal access to education for all our citizens.
I think school choice is part of the solution, but not the entirety of it. In most ex-urban settings it's impractical (too costly) to have multiple public schools with separate campuses, administrations, school boards, unions, students and parents. Within this context, I don't see public charters being a sensible solution for rural or suburban America outside of a few major metropolitan centers.
In these areas, a few extra dollars spent per student per annum might push up student performance if those dollars were directed to paying staff to hold structured after-school programs both for under-performing and overachieving students (should they wish to know more).
There are radical deltas in per student public education spending within states far beyond the cost-of-living differences in various areas of those states. That's shameful. And while increased spending doesn't always lead to better results, it absolutely does when applied to schools in the bottom decile or quartile of schools as a whole.
Perhaps a piece on options for ex-urban areas next?
I think school choice is part of the solution, but not the entirety of it. In most ex-urban settings it's impractical (too costly) to have multiple public schools with separate campuses, administrations, school boards, unions, students and parents. Within this context, I don't see public charters being a sensible solution for rural or suburban America outside of a few major metropolitan centers.
In these areas, a few extra dollars spent per student per annum might push up student performance if those dollars were directed to paying staff to hold structured after-school programs both for under-performing and overachieving students (should they wish to know more).
There are radical deltas in per student public education spending within states far beyond the cost-of-living differences in various areas of those states. That's shameful. And while increased spending doesn't always lead to better results, it absolutely does when applied to schools in the bottom decile or quartile of schools as a whole.
Perhaps a piece on options for ex-urban areas next?
Parental involvement in a school will lead to better performance. Parents volunteering in the classrooms, organizing and hands on participation in upgrading, attendance at school-parent association meetings. For that to happen we need parental employment that allows the time and offers pay so second and third jobs are not needed. Our schools are part of our society and not taking care of our youth is a poor plan for the future of that society.
1
Schools are products and reflections of the societies within which they exist. We run afoul of reality if we treat them as detached idealistic oases unaffected by the large number of economic, social and political dynamics that affect us all, let alone our children. Yes, there are real financial inequities among school districts. Yes, there are real and sometimes severe differences among school district demographics. Yes, school districts, teachers and administrators, and parents have different views toward the purposes of education. And, yes, the teaching profession is still significantly under-appreciated and under-compensated. These root issues are sporadically addressed but remain unresolved. The "defenders" and "so-called reformers," aside from those who see education as a packaged money-making production line opportunity, are both experimenting but there is a lack of control, of validated standards, and of factor-isolation. In fact, we're experiencing an unrefereed education free-for-all that's producing some local results, lots of journal papers and education PhDs, and some personal acclaim, but little relevant documented longitudinal and transferable experience. All this experimentation, much of it self-serving, roils our elementary-high school education environment to the point that there's more attention on everything else but the quality education that each of our children deserves.
1
The issue with this study is that is looking in the rear view mirror. Increasingly, metrics once useful, like college admission or graduation, are becoming much less so.Colleges and majors proliferate, quality becomes much more variable and value in terms of securing employment declines.Charter schools do much more than churn out better traditional metrics.They tend to provide education in the real sense of the word, namely critical thinking, familiarity with the arts ,literature, the world etc.As the meaning of "education" in our culture continues to narrow and lose value, an emphasis on education is the true sense of the word becomes more critical.
How can anyone look at school, their place in a civil egalitarian society, and not see the school is a part of a vast web of interaction. How can students succeed with little support or example of a value in learning from their peers or more importantly their homes.
How can schools succeed without families also succeeding ? How can families succeed as long as gross economic inequality is considered the norm?
How can schools succeed without families also succeeding ? How can families succeed as long as gross economic inequality is considered the norm?
1
I notice we don't get articles on how other countries handle their problems, or do they have problems like we do. In the U.S. our problems never go away. Charter Schools and vouchers are just fancy ways of covering up failures of our public school system. For some reason it is easier to walk away from a problem than to solve it. There are positive attributes about them, but generally speaking it is a way of covering up our failures in public schools.
School vouchers were and continue to be a smoke screen for subsidizing middle and upper middle class whites at the expense of inner city schools. Also they Charter schools are simply another Republican can strategy for busting the teacher's unions without improving anyone's education. What we really need is proper funding of public schools and engagement by teachers, students and parents. This will be result in lasting improvements in our schools without the bureaucracy of Charter schools and vouchers.
Ontario, Canada had appalling schools until the Hall-Dennis Report was issued in the '60's. Now Ontario's schools are some of the finest in the world. Finland's schools are often regarded as the best in the world, with good reason. Teachers are highly regarded and highly paid. The best and brightest go into teaching. Teachers are given more discretion. Teachers in Finland meet regularly as teams to make decisions about their jobs.
Let's look to models that work. A commission, similar to Ontario's Hall-Dennis Report, would be helpful.
Let's look to models that work. A commission, similar to Ontario's Hall-Dennis Report, would be helpful.
1
There are numerous reasons for the success of Finnish schools; high pay is not one of them. FInnish teachers are paid MUCH LESS than US teachers -- about 35% less -- and that's despite all Finnish teachers have master's degrees. And the cost of living in Finland is higher than in most of the USA!
LESS...not more. There is something profound to be learned here, but lefty liberals refuse to acknowledge it.
LESS...not more. There is something profound to be learned here, but lefty liberals refuse to acknowledge it.
It's America - we're trying to run and manage schools as if they were businesses. Wrong approach but it's the capitalist's way of doing things.
Leonhardt's two broader points are the key factors for superior public education. "First, education isn’t just another issue. It is the most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards. Well-educated adults earn much more, live longer and are happier than poorly educated adults. When researchers try to tease out whether education does much to cause these benefits, the answer appears to be yes."
Does everything have to be dollars and cents? How about just using good common sense and strive for the best possible education with the best possible teachers available to everyone? Education and learning have been around since ancient times and yet somehow America can't figure out the best delivery. Doesn't have anything to do with funding by any chance?
Can't afford it? Can we afford not to?
Leonhardt's two broader points are the key factors for superior public education. "First, education isn’t just another issue. It is the most powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards. Well-educated adults earn much more, live longer and are happier than poorly educated adults. When researchers try to tease out whether education does much to cause these benefits, the answer appears to be yes."
Does everything have to be dollars and cents? How about just using good common sense and strive for the best possible education with the best possible teachers available to everyone? Education and learning have been around since ancient times and yet somehow America can't figure out the best delivery. Doesn't have anything to do with funding by any chance?
Can't afford it? Can we afford not to?
"Students using vouchers to attend a private school did worse on math and reading than similar students in public school, the study found."
In my experience, students who attended after-school programs such as Prep for Prep and earned scholarships to prestigious private schools did somewhat worse, in terms of grades, their first year after having transferred. That's because their public school teachers graded on a curve, and that old A- in eighth grade was now a B in ninth. They caught on, though, soon enough, and worked hard -- and they caught up with (and sometimes even outpaced) their new classmates.
More recently, such kids are either on par with or outperform their private school classmates, possibly because private schools are embracing the same school of education theories that our public schools have for years been implementing, and trying to avoid working their students "too hard." Out with grammar, out with arithmetic, in with group learning and projects.
There are many types of "private schools." But not all private schools are equal. Catholic schools are one thing, schools like Trinity and Collegiate another, and Protestant born-again schools something else entirely. It's a fair bet that some students will never hear of Darwin.
Public money should not be used for private schools. That includes vouchers.
(And religious organizations should pay municipal taxes. If there was a fire in the church, they'd call the fire department soon enough.)
In my experience, students who attended after-school programs such as Prep for Prep and earned scholarships to prestigious private schools did somewhat worse, in terms of grades, their first year after having transferred. That's because their public school teachers graded on a curve, and that old A- in eighth grade was now a B in ninth. They caught on, though, soon enough, and worked hard -- and they caught up with (and sometimes even outpaced) their new classmates.
More recently, such kids are either on par with or outperform their private school classmates, possibly because private schools are embracing the same school of education theories that our public schools have for years been implementing, and trying to avoid working their students "too hard." Out with grammar, out with arithmetic, in with group learning and projects.
There are many types of "private schools." But not all private schools are equal. Catholic schools are one thing, schools like Trinity and Collegiate another, and Protestant born-again schools something else entirely. It's a fair bet that some students will never hear of Darwin.
Public money should not be used for private schools. That includes vouchers.
(And religious organizations should pay municipal taxes. If there was a fire in the church, they'd call the fire department soon enough.)
There are good-governance, economic and statistical rules violated by de Vos that need to be highlighted...
1. Public schools educate the vast majority of students. Hence the focus should always be on improving and not diminishing them.
2. 'Market competition' is not what is going on here. Charters and vouchers cannot improve public schools because the market they operate in is not competitive nor are they scaleable. Public schools' problems will likely be exacerbated by them. Without proper resourcing, management and institutional framework (including labor law) public schools are not competing.
3. Even with D.C. charter attendees being chosen randomly they did not enter the pool of candidates randomly--concerned, informed parents signed up and that already skews the results.
4. Parental approval of (D.C.) charters (vouchers) is pretty meaningless. Like Trump voters in denial, it takes a lot more for adults to admit they were wrong so higher approval is a suspect measure.
5. The "Tipping Point" (Malcolm Gladwell) profoundly observed addressing transferring a few poor kids to new school environments are likely to fail because the cohort is a learning environment too small.
The bottom line is that de Vos and Trump are simply going to worsen public school outcomes in deference to a few students at the margin (and vested interests) who will benefit. The real question is what we are learning that will allow us to improve public schools.
1. Public schools educate the vast majority of students. Hence the focus should always be on improving and not diminishing them.
2. 'Market competition' is not what is going on here. Charters and vouchers cannot improve public schools because the market they operate in is not competitive nor are they scaleable. Public schools' problems will likely be exacerbated by them. Without proper resourcing, management and institutional framework (including labor law) public schools are not competing.
3. Even with D.C. charter attendees being chosen randomly they did not enter the pool of candidates randomly--concerned, informed parents signed up and that already skews the results.
4. Parental approval of (D.C.) charters (vouchers) is pretty meaningless. Like Trump voters in denial, it takes a lot more for adults to admit they were wrong so higher approval is a suspect measure.
5. The "Tipping Point" (Malcolm Gladwell) profoundly observed addressing transferring a few poor kids to new school environments are likely to fail because the cohort is a learning environment too small.
The bottom line is that de Vos and Trump are simply going to worsen public school outcomes in deference to a few students at the margin (and vested interests) who will benefit. The real question is what we are learning that will allow us to improve public schools.
You conflate "traditional schools" with "public schools," doing just what you criticize. Public schools (that are not charters) include a wide range of innovative, non-traditional models that are a joy to behold and very successful. I know of several here in my city. I also know of one innovative and successful charter school here, but many others are very "traditional" and in fact regimented. There is simply no reason to hand public funds to private entities to run schools. Instead, we should make public education a priority with lavish (yes, lavish, like the Pentagon) funding and the highest quality administrators, including our best teachers, who will empower and fund creativity and innovation throughout our public schools.
Economists view the education system as a monopoly run by the educators and administrators primarily for their own benefit, with the kids needs as secondary.
They postulate to change this you need competition. Any competition. Charters, Vouchers, whatever... to spur change in the education system. They also needed a whole variety of other things like performance measurement, teacher training, and the ability to terminate the poor teachers.
I don't really care who wins or loses or why or which political point of view prevails. I only care that the American kids get a great education and the American taxpayer gets this at the lowest possible cost.
After 20 years of schooling and with two kids finishing high school, I can tell you that, even in the best schools, the economists are right. They are resistant to change, unable to cut the poor performers, rigid contracts, avoidance of input, avoidance of measurement, failure to use science to determine best practices, setting vacations and days off for the teachers needs, doing what is best for the educators and administrators. Go ahead, test this, ask your kids high school teacher for their cell number.
So, I say, keep experimenting with all types of competition and and lets figure out what works best...for the kids and for America. Lets prod this system to change. Let's change to what works and help the system implement the changes we need.
They postulate to change this you need competition. Any competition. Charters, Vouchers, whatever... to spur change in the education system. They also needed a whole variety of other things like performance measurement, teacher training, and the ability to terminate the poor teachers.
I don't really care who wins or loses or why or which political point of view prevails. I only care that the American kids get a great education and the American taxpayer gets this at the lowest possible cost.
After 20 years of schooling and with two kids finishing high school, I can tell you that, even in the best schools, the economists are right. They are resistant to change, unable to cut the poor performers, rigid contracts, avoidance of input, avoidance of measurement, failure to use science to determine best practices, setting vacations and days off for the teachers needs, doing what is best for the educators and administrators. Go ahead, test this, ask your kids high school teacher for their cell number.
So, I say, keep experimenting with all types of competition and and lets figure out what works best...for the kids and for America. Lets prod this system to change. Let's change to what works and help the system implement the changes we need.
2
Here in Arizona, we have the top five charter schools in the country, the BASIS Schools, with two of them in Tucson where I live:
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-rankings/cha...
These schools also all made the top-10 list of the best high schools in the United States.
Their curriculum focuses on mastery of the Advanced Placement (AP) courses from the College Board. Many students are ready to transfer to community college by eleventh grade (or sometimes sooner).
I wish these schools had been available to me when I was in high school (back in the 1970s). It seems like many students, who could be doing much better in school, just wind up being warehoused until they turn 18.
Expansion of BASIS-type charters everywhere, particularly into urban areas with rich cultural environments that would provide valuable ancillary experiences, should be promoted.
But you have to wonder why *all* schools can’t be patterned after this model -- after all, it’s not very intensive in requiring a lot of resources -- well-prepared teaching faculty are the most valuable asset. So we need the best in teacher training and retention. BASIS appears to provide a common thread that could weave together public, private, charter, magnet, and STEM schools. So why not encourage many more of them?
Education, like health care, is a big, deeply-rooted problem in this country. It clearly can't be "fixed" overnight. But we have to start somewhere.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/national-rankings/cha...
These schools also all made the top-10 list of the best high schools in the United States.
Their curriculum focuses on mastery of the Advanced Placement (AP) courses from the College Board. Many students are ready to transfer to community college by eleventh grade (or sometimes sooner).
I wish these schools had been available to me when I was in high school (back in the 1970s). It seems like many students, who could be doing much better in school, just wind up being warehoused until they turn 18.
Expansion of BASIS-type charters everywhere, particularly into urban areas with rich cultural environments that would provide valuable ancillary experiences, should be promoted.
But you have to wonder why *all* schools can’t be patterned after this model -- after all, it’s not very intensive in requiring a lot of resources -- well-prepared teaching faculty are the most valuable asset. So we need the best in teacher training and retention. BASIS appears to provide a common thread that could weave together public, private, charter, magnet, and STEM schools. So why not encourage many more of them?
Education, like health care, is a big, deeply-rooted problem in this country. It clearly can't be "fixed" overnight. But we have to start somewhere.
None of the top educational systems in the world need to use gimmicks like vouchers and charter schools to succeed. They are all public systems with generally equitable funding and fairly consistent administration. They aren't run by 10,,000 different boards of education with funding ranging from that of Scarsdale, NY and Short Hills, NJ to Camden, NJ and Flint, Michigan. I agree with WFGersen's comment here about some of the causes of our problems as well as what is frequently left out of the discussion (not surprisingly): economic segregation, to be blunt.
Leonhardt says that
". . . many charter-school systems are subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight."
However, many - perhaps most - are not. The Auditor General of the state of Pennsylvania once declared that Pennsylvania has”the worst charter school law in the nation,” exactly because of a lack of accountability. Ohio and other states have similar problems.
Leonhardt also asserts that
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
Once again, many are not open to all, and studies show that charters have a higher rate of suspensions, forcing out students that they find difficult. Public schools do take everybody. Charter schools do not serve as many special needs students.
Until charters are held accountable to the same standards as public schools, it will remain difficult to make valid comparisons. I note that charter lobbyists fight accountability measures. Surely if they thought that charters would compare favorably, the lobbyists would welcome accountability measures.
". . . many charter-school systems are subject to rigorous evaluation and oversight."
However, many - perhaps most - are not. The Auditor General of the state of Pennsylvania once declared that Pennsylvania has”the worst charter school law in the nation,” exactly because of a lack of accountability. Ohio and other states have similar problems.
Leonhardt also asserts that
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
Once again, many are not open to all, and studies show that charters have a higher rate of suspensions, forcing out students that they find difficult. Public schools do take everybody. Charter schools do not serve as many special needs students.
Until charters are held accountable to the same standards as public schools, it will remain difficult to make valid comparisons. I note that charter lobbyists fight accountability measures. Surely if they thought that charters would compare favorably, the lobbyists would welcome accountability measures.
For me the idea of taking money out of the PS system to give parents choice is antithetical to the reasons for PS in the first place! I left the PS system in NYC with the help of an endowment program. i was very lucky; but a separate funding of choice is completely possible with the endowment type of giving that many universities use to this day. If we take funds from PS it will only weaken the chances of those PS children from getting an education. Will charter schools take on IEP and special needs children in a ratio equal to those of the PS systems they get money from? In economically poor districts will there be charter schools available and if not aren't we just once again segregating our kids?
In New York City, "charter schools" were born of refusal to give parents of children in failing public schools vouchers to educate them elsewhere. "Elsewhere" in New York City was a parallel school system run by the New York Archdiocese of New York. There was an elementary school for most parishes throughout the city - adding up to about one for every ten city blocks - as well as a number of high schools. The vouchers would have gone to the parents - not the schools - and that was, in my opinion, grounds for a Supreme Court case. The children lost because a bloated public school bureaucracy killed their chance, with a generous amount of religious prejudice stirred into the mix. As one of the many children of working class immigrants raised in New York City, it was staggering to see schools that were, by any measure, resounding educational successes close because they were starved of funds. What the city purportedly sought - a better education for kids - was right under their noses. The buildings remained while the city passed them over and built "charter schools." I count my education in the schools of New York's Catholic Archdiocese to be one of the great blessings of my life and it broke my heart to see kids in inner city neighborhoods robbed of the same chance.
1
The idea that this is a binary issue - that either charters can be successful or traditional public schools can - is simply wrong, as is the idea that charters 'siphon money' away from public schools, as they simply do not. As the data shows, charter schools often receive less per pupil than their traditional public counterparts, and via per-pupil funding, there is no 'transfer' of funds if students leave a traditional public school. Additionally, there are many incredible charter schools providing tremendous benefits to students, particularly those from low-income communities who would otherwise attend poorly run public schools with little oversight, dismal teacher quality and low expectations for student success.
The persistent idea that all charter schools 'cream from the top' has been consistently proven wrong by the data, which Leonhardt cites, and to deny this is to allow biased beliefs about what education should do trump what it actually is doing. Charter schools are often places where students and teachers flourish because of a mindset of success and high expectations, even as they are less funded than their traditional public counterparts. Of course, there should also be consistent and deliberate work done in the traditional public school system - lessons which can, in many cases, be learned from successful charter organizations, which were intended to serve just that purpose.
The persistent idea that all charter schools 'cream from the top' has been consistently proven wrong by the data, which Leonhardt cites, and to deny this is to allow biased beliefs about what education should do trump what it actually is doing. Charter schools are often places where students and teachers flourish because of a mindset of success and high expectations, even as they are less funded than their traditional public counterparts. Of course, there should also be consistent and deliberate work done in the traditional public school system - lessons which can, in many cases, be learned from successful charter organizations, which were intended to serve just that purpose.
1
Forcing parents to send their children to the local public school encourages geographical wealth segregation, because parents will simply move to a more affluent area.
So while charter schools may result in unequal spending on education itself, they do promote a more integrated society geographically.
So while charter schools may result in unequal spending on education itself, they do promote a more integrated society geographically.
We must recognize that some children will never be "high performing." They're afflicted with learning disabilities, caused by a host of problems. The problems arise from genetic inheritance to prenatal and postnatal injuries and deprivation. Charters and voucher programs won't help these kids because the administrators need to prove their schools' value with high grades. If we really wanted to improve education for all (and not just make money off kids), we would improve prenatal care, pre-K, public health, and "welfare" in the old sense of the term. The focus on vouchers and charters misses the point of "failing." We are failing kids when we let families live in poverty and squalor and permanently allow their brains to be injured.
Do the surveys take into consideration that the parents who seek alternative educational opportunities are more likely to be more interested and involved in their children's education and to provide a better home environment for learning?
1
The author overlooks the fact that charter schools recruit the youngest, least experienced "teachers." They then work these kids as hard as they can for the least amount of money and, after the young idealists burn out and leave the profession (without ever having become real professionals), the charters go fishing for more gullible novices to exploit. That any charter is successful should be chalked up to dumb luck. Anyway, the real question is what do conservatives have against public schools in the first place. Maybe conservatives are just big on the exploitation of labor for private gain.
One Comment slammed charters for benefitting from highly engaged parents, as if the engaged parent is something to combat! If all parents were similarly engaged, demand for better schools would be so huge that every school would be forced to compete with the success of many (not all) charters. The problem isn't charters--it's unengaged parents.
It comes down to this: the left believes in and wants to improve public education, the right believes an an unrestricted free market and wants to eliminate public education by privatizing it.
Education, social security, health care, prisons - the list of public programs that the right seeks to eliminate in order to subject them to the whims of the free market, putting money and power into the hands of the few to the detriment of the many, goes on and on.
Charter schools, vouchers- these are just two more weapons in the right's arsenal, moved out to implement its anti-government, pro free market agenda. Presented under the guise of improving public edication, they actually work to undermine it.
The data does not show that privately run charter schools do any better at educating our children than publicly run schools. What they do accomplish is to put profit over principle as the driving force behind our educational system and weaken poen.our ability to give all of our children the education they need to be successful and knowledgeable members of American society. An educational system designed around vouchers and privatization will have a similar effect on our educational system as unrestricted free markets have had on our economy- to increase educational inequality, putting power and knowledge in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.
We must not allow that to happen.
Education, social security, health care, prisons - the list of public programs that the right seeks to eliminate in order to subject them to the whims of the free market, putting money and power into the hands of the few to the detriment of the many, goes on and on.
Charter schools, vouchers- these are just two more weapons in the right's arsenal, moved out to implement its anti-government, pro free market agenda. Presented under the guise of improving public edication, they actually work to undermine it.
The data does not show that privately run charter schools do any better at educating our children than publicly run schools. What they do accomplish is to put profit over principle as the driving force behind our educational system and weaken poen.our ability to give all of our children the education they need to be successful and knowledgeable members of American society. An educational system designed around vouchers and privatization will have a similar effect on our educational system as unrestricted free markets have had on our economy- to increase educational inequality, putting power and knowledge in the hands of the few at the expense of the many.
We must not allow that to happen.
This is nothing more than a complete abdication of the government's responsibility to provide equal, quality public education to the children of this country.
It's also a thinly veiled attempt by DeVos (the most unqualified Sec of Education in my lifetime) to turn public education into a for profit industry to insure that she and her wealthy friends maintain a paid for educational class distinction.
If you don't have rich parents that can pay the outrageous tuition of these for profit schools, well tough luck.
One more Trump hack, doing long term damage to the fabric of our country, the aspirational middle class and ultimately our democracy.
It's also a thinly veiled attempt by DeVos (the most unqualified Sec of Education in my lifetime) to turn public education into a for profit industry to insure that she and her wealthy friends maintain a paid for educational class distinction.
If you don't have rich parents that can pay the outrageous tuition of these for profit schools, well tough luck.
One more Trump hack, doing long term damage to the fabric of our country, the aspirational middle class and ultimately our democracy.
1
Put the energy and creativity that supposedly goes into charter schools into public schools and you could move down the road to solving the education problem. We all pay for the public schools. Why should people pay more with vouchers. Public schools were the backbone of our democracy. They must be supported and financed.
1
The issue is accountability. DeVos has a terrible record on this score and her responses in her confirmation hearings were incoherent. With competent leadership at DoE that was truly committed to seeking the best solution for students, one could strongly support the charter movement. Unfortunately we have an ideolog.
David - can you summarize the studies that backs up your assertion that charters are performing well compared to public and private schools? Standford's 2016 CREDO 26-state study concluded that "kids in most charter schools are doing worse or no better than students in traditional public schools".
As a Catholic school parent of 2 k-12 graduates I won't benefit anymore but want to make a point. In Conn we have 20 billion in unfunded teacher pensions and about the same in bonded debt for "free" schools. My expenditures (total for 2 girls k-12) were about 180k for 24 total years or $7500/yr (3-4k for k-8 and 12-15k for 9-12). My schools accrued zero dollars in pension debt or bonded debt and during that time I probably paid in taxes 85k towards my school system(pro-rating half of tax to BOE). Isn't that a great service to Conn that my schools (and I and other parents selflessly provided)by freeing up MORE for the public school students? At one time the costs for Catholic(and public schools)were not so great but with per pupil cost for k-12 now at 15,000 or in my case $360k if I sent my kids to public school should there not be SOME kind of incentive. Again, I am done with my 2001 cars and 25 years of part time adjunct work, but I am worried about the NEXT generation, if there is one. My kids are doing great in STEM programs at Midwest Jesuit Universities by the way, no creationism or climate denial taught despite the strange lies of opponents, and certain no "Profit" as many uninformed cry "Koch brothers" not differentiating U Phoenix from a school where Sat night bingo helped keep it afloat.
2
Excellent piece. The reality is however that the die is often cast long before a child goes to school. According to CNN, Seventy five percent of African American children are born to single mothers. The number is fifty five percent for Hispanics. The vast majority of those mothers are poorly educated and living at or below the poverty line. Children born into these homes, in these circumstances, reach school age at a significant disadvantage. Young women have to be taught to make better choices. We should be doubling the funding for planned Parenthood, not talking about defunding it.
2
"many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best" Is false because Charters have a scam called "attrition" (I should know I worked for one) . Attrition works by dumping the lowest performing students, including ELLs and SPED children back into the public schools AFTER October. Why October? Because that is when the budgets are set, the Charter keeps the money and lowers it operating cost thus maximizing profit. Diane Ravitch found that only 15-20% of freshman who entered a charter actually graduated from the same charter.
Is the purpose of charter and voucher schools to improve education or to bust the public teachers' unions.
Some supporters of charters and vouchers believe too much money is spent on education , particularly education of OTHER peoples' children.
The important thing is that their OWN children receive a better education than OTHER peoples' children.
Underfunding the schools of OTHER peoples' children is therefore acceptable.
Some supporters of charters and vouchers believe too much money is spent on education , particularly education of OTHER peoples' children.
The important thing is that their OWN children receive a better education than OTHER peoples' children.
Underfunding the schools of OTHER peoples' children is therefore acceptable.
18
And that is a very, very worthy goal. The teacher unions are deeply and profoundly corrupt, and the reason for the failure of modern public education in the US.
Too much IS wasted on education, with poor results, because of the public union corruption.
Too much IS wasted on education, with poor results, because of the public union corruption.
The environments in which Charters operate vary from functional to dysfunctional. Pre-charter New Orleans was one of the most dysfunctional in the country, suffering from widespread corruption, extreme concentrated poverty and the trauma and dislocation caused by Katrina. After widespread corruption was found in an FBI investigation, with over 8,000 non-employees receiving checks from the school system, control of the Orleans Parish schools was turned over to the state. A couple of years later, Katrina hit. Eventually over 120 OP public schools were closed and converted to charters.
The charters now educate all of the most disadvantaged kids in the NO Parish, so there is no siphoning off of the higher performing kids. But parents can choose among charters.
The result is that Orleans Parish has moved from 67th out of 68 statewide districts to 39th. Rates of HS graduation and college attendance have improved dramatically. Teacher preparation is intense. One of the highest performing schools, Arthur Ashe, also has the highest % of special education kids in the Parish.
The poverty, homelessness, crime and other challenges are still there, but the charter schools offer hope for a different future.
The charters now educate all of the most disadvantaged kids in the NO Parish, so there is no siphoning off of the higher performing kids. But parents can choose among charters.
The result is that Orleans Parish has moved from 67th out of 68 statewide districts to 39th. Rates of HS graduation and college attendance have improved dramatically. Teacher preparation is intense. One of the highest performing schools, Arthur Ashe, also has the highest % of special education kids in the Parish.
The poverty, homelessness, crime and other challenges are still there, but the charter schools offer hope for a different future.
3
At best, charter schools succeed by siphoning public funds from traditional public schools while being freed from public oversight.
43
Not true. Charters have accountability via charter schools boards, so there is public oversight. As for your contention that charters succeed by "siphoning" public funds from traditional publics, no...they succeed (or fail) based on the hard work of staff, and good curricular materials, just as with traditional public schools.
1
I think that is not accurate. Charter schools are public schools and they, like their students, undergo the same basic evaluations and oversight as traditional public schools. Where charter schools are not the "norm," they may even undergo even more scrutiny.
1
Dear Mancuroc,
You are totally incorrect. My son teaches at a charter school in Texas and the standards (called STAR in Texas) are strictly enforced. Teachers are judged by how well their students do on the STAR testing. My son sometimes chafes that making good STAR scores is not the same as learning nevertheless this core is not optional at his schools.
The schools are audited not just by their own organizations but also by the state.
The schools that have no public oversight are the private schools.
My son's school has a significant population of poor urban Houston kids. My son tells me that the primary determining factor of the success of a student is their desire to learn and the next one is the support and involvement of the parents in their children's education.
Public schools have the same benchmarks as charter schools, but the reason some of them lag is the lack of parental interest. In the large suburban public schools there is often more parental involvement in the school activities than the urban ones.
It really is not a mystery why some schools do better than others. The ones that do poorly can generally be characterized by lack of parental interest.
You are totally incorrect. My son teaches at a charter school in Texas and the standards (called STAR in Texas) are strictly enforced. Teachers are judged by how well their students do on the STAR testing. My son sometimes chafes that making good STAR scores is not the same as learning nevertheless this core is not optional at his schools.
The schools are audited not just by their own organizations but also by the state.
The schools that have no public oversight are the private schools.
My son's school has a significant population of poor urban Houston kids. My son tells me that the primary determining factor of the success of a student is their desire to learn and the next one is the support and involvement of the parents in their children's education.
Public schools have the same benchmarks as charter schools, but the reason some of them lag is the lack of parental interest. In the large suburban public schools there is often more parental involvement in the school activities than the urban ones.
It really is not a mystery why some schools do better than others. The ones that do poorly can generally be characterized by lack of parental interest.
1
"many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best"
This is a false conclusion. Parental support and commitment are usually keys to success in school, and when transfer to a charter or other special school is voluntary there is strong selection in favor of students with that support. True tests would be based on random selection.
If Leonhardt doesn't understand something as basic as this he shouldn't be writing about the subject.
This is a false conclusion. Parental support and commitment are usually keys to success in school, and when transfer to a charter or other special school is voluntary there is strong selection in favor of students with that support. True tests would be based on random selection.
If Leonhardt doesn't understand something as basic as this he shouldn't be writing about the subject.
199
Full disclosure: one of my children attended an absolutely fabulous charter school (not in Ohio). The curriculum was superior even to expensive private schools, and it was safe, and free. But the problem is and was selection. They were able to limit class size, and so to turn away students. You cannot tell me that academically weaker or more disruptive students were not the ones turned away "for lack of space". The school also retained the right to expel students who could not cut it academically or behaviorally. No wonder their results were better than the local public schools. The answer is to reduce class size, reinvigorate academic standards, and provide all the extra resources needed for children in EVERY public school to be educated to the highest standards.
skeptonomist: you lost me with your last sentence.
1
True that.
Leonhardt can't even process that charters pick students based on a lottery. So only students whose parents are motivated enough to enter the lottery can win entry. Mr. Leonhardt, there are plenty of children whose parents either don't know about the lottery, or are insufficiently motivated to enter it. There is a yuge difference between children with parents motivated to enter the lottery, and those whose parents are not.
The ground starts out not level, and it gets worse from there. Leonhardt evidently doesn't read the work of the education beat reporters who work for the paper that pays his salary. Nothing about "counseling out" children whose parents are insufficiently motivated? Nothing about the paucity of special ed or ESL students in charters vs. public schools? Nothing about the relentless test prep in charters, abetted by having deep pocketed sugar daddies able to pay for Pearson's "preferred test prep materials," generally unavailable to poorer public districts? Feh.
Leonhardt can't even process that charters pick students based on a lottery. So only students whose parents are motivated enough to enter the lottery can win entry. Mr. Leonhardt, there are plenty of children whose parents either don't know about the lottery, or are insufficiently motivated to enter it. There is a yuge difference between children with parents motivated to enter the lottery, and those whose parents are not.
The ground starts out not level, and it gets worse from there. Leonhardt evidently doesn't read the work of the education beat reporters who work for the paper that pays his salary. Nothing about "counseling out" children whose parents are insufficiently motivated? Nothing about the paucity of special ed or ESL students in charters vs. public schools? Nothing about the relentless test prep in charters, abetted by having deep pocketed sugar daddies able to pay for Pearson's "preferred test prep materials," generally unavailable to poorer public districts? Feh.
1
As an older adult who hasn't had a child in school for decades, I am admittedly at some distance from this issue. That said, it occurs to me that charter schools were and are intended to sort students, and teachers. And top students and teachers should be together - they and the nation benefit. But, as I read this excellent column I found myself thinking about the student coming from an impoverished home, one that is the latest iteration of the cycle of poverty that we have too long ignored. What happens to that student? And what becomes of our society when we continue to pretend that such students have only themselves to blame? Because educational attainment seems but one more symptom of a more fundamental problem - extreme and perpetual poverty combined with accelerating concentration of wealth and opportunity. This is a cultural issue, one that has no easy solutions, certainly not inexpensive ones. But, if we continue to pretend to address it, we will surely pay a greater price.
As for vouchers, it also struck me that if I had as a primary goal isolating poor students (segregation anyone?) rather than improving overall educational attainment, and especially if I had as an ancillary goal gaining more control of the curriculum ( a little more religion anyone?), and even more especially if I also sought opportunities to redirect public funds into private coffers, vouchers would be my ideal mechanism. All in the name of educational improvement, of course.
As for vouchers, it also struck me that if I had as a primary goal isolating poor students (segregation anyone?) rather than improving overall educational attainment, and especially if I had as an ancillary goal gaining more control of the curriculum ( a little more religion anyone?), and even more especially if I also sought opportunities to redirect public funds into private coffers, vouchers would be my ideal mechanism. All in the name of educational improvement, of course.
85
Your second paragraph is totally on target!!
"top students and teachers should be together - they and the nation benefit. " Really? I'd have thought it should be the other way round.
Lowest achieving students should be with the best teachers - they and the nation benefit.
Lowest achieving students should be with the best teachers - they and the nation benefit.
I am a progressive, and a parent, and welcoming charters with open arms does indeed make me squeamish. Here's why: In my state (N.C.) charter schools do not have to meet the same standards as traditional public schools - in teacher qualifications; in providing services for Exceptional Children (often harder and more expensive to educate); in providing transportation to students; In providing meals to students, just to name a few differences. In practice this means charters (which might be public, non-profit entities or might be for-profit corporations looking to make lots of bucks from our taxes) can skim off students who don't need lunches, don't need buses because their families can afford cars, and are less expensive to educate. This places extra financial burdens on traditional public schools - where 90% of our students actually go. In addition, neighborhood schools provide far more than just education - they are often the glue that creates a sense of community within neighborhoods; providing the contact point for other social services and programs that foster educational achievement and emotional development. If there are charter schools that seem to be getting great results because of their pedagogy rather than the fact that they skim the cream from the top and operate under different rules, then lets adopt those pedagogical practices for more students in traditional schools.
279
AMinNC, you are right on point. Charter schools in NC, especially in rural areas, do not only result in segregation by race, economic status, and need, that is their INTENT.
Further, although the entire original justification for NC charter schools was "freedom to innovate", with "best practices" shared with all public schools, we are now a decade down this road with nothing to show for it with regard to shared innovation. Not surprising, given that no effort has been made, or funding provided, to facilitate the sharing of innovative practices. And, finally, let's be clear as to why this is so. The original justification of "freedom to innovate" was always a ruse. I was a student in the 60's when public schools went through integration. To see the system re- segregated more than a generation later is so disappointing.
Further, although the entire original justification for NC charter schools was "freedom to innovate", with "best practices" shared with all public schools, we are now a decade down this road with nothing to show for it with regard to shared innovation. Not surprising, given that no effort has been made, or funding provided, to facilitate the sharing of innovative practices. And, finally, let's be clear as to why this is so. The original justification of "freedom to innovate" was always a ruse. I was a student in the 60's when public schools went through integration. To see the system re- segregated more than a generation later is so disappointing.
How come charters don't need to meet the same standards? How did we get to this point?
I have one such charter school near here. Families on the west side of the highway have a much lower income than those to the east. The district does not provide bus service, so ALL of the students arrive and leave in a parade of cars driven by parents. Parents who have work schedules that allow them to play chauffeur. Too bad for the "others". Must be nice to have a tax payer supported private school.
What I would have liked to see in this interesting column is a comparison of U.S. schools with those in Europe. My impression is that teachers in Europe are well paid, but even more importantly are respected, almost honored. How might we move from where we are to where we could be? Hmm. It would take lots of money and keen leadership. Should we support Republicans who take a dim view of such fields as evolution, global warming, equality of people regardless of the color of their skin, etc. Man O man, sometimes I despair.
63
"Don't know much about history --."
Americans have been embracing anti-intellectualism for a long time. Ball games, beer drinking, fast cars, fast food, target practice, reality TV, shopping -- these are our pastimes. And we're awfully suspicious of people who speak in full sentences and read books.
Americans have been embracing anti-intellectualism for a long time. Ball games, beer drinking, fast cars, fast food, target practice, reality TV, shopping -- these are our pastimes. And we're awfully suspicious of people who speak in full sentences and read books.
Comparing the US system with top performing countries like Finland is an excellent way of seeing how far behind the US really is. The difference starts before birth, where Finnish women have access to their universal health care system, which includes pre-natal care. Then, after the baby is born, the parents get sent home with a "baby box" of supplies and information, and the government also provides a parenting coach who will come by and help out. The parents get 8-12 months of family leave, with specific encouragement for both parents to take leave, thus making it likely that both mom and dad are highly involved in their child's life. Starting at 8 months, the child is now eligible for government-run day care which most families make use of. So by the time the child enters school for the first time, they are about a year ahead of their American counterparts.
Then they get into a system where the teachers are universally highly paid and highly respected professionals, and where students are tracked based on their academic performance. Because public university is free to attend for those who qualify, all kids know that they have a real chance of becoming a highly educated professional, while many American kids are told in no uncertain terms that they should not look forward to that.
I can go on, but suffice to say, it will leave you in tears to see how backwards we really are in the US.
Then they get into a system where the teachers are universally highly paid and highly respected professionals, and where students are tracked based on their academic performance. Because public university is free to attend for those who qualify, all kids know that they have a real chance of becoming a highly educated professional, while many American kids are told in no uncertain terms that they should not look forward to that.
I can go on, but suffice to say, it will leave you in tears to see how backwards we really are in the US.
You are dead wrong about Finland. First off, you failed to say that it is a tiny, tiny country -- 5 million -- vs. the US at 330 million. Finland is all white, and ethnically homogenous, with almost no immigration (and certainly no illegal immigration). The US is diverse beyond belief, with a vast underclass of very poor minorities, and massive illegal immigration.
Finn's also start children in school at age 7 -- second grade -- and continue to age 19, and I guess, "13th grade". Children are more ready for school, to sit still and learn, at 7 -- we start children too early.
They do have subsidized (not free) day care, but it is "play school" and not geared to create little miniature robotic students. And many Finnish moms STAY HOME while their children are young!
On top of that....Finnish teachers do NOT earn more than spoiled, whinging American public union teachers. THEY EARN MUCH LESS! I was shocked to learn this, but it is true. Look it up -- Finnish teachers earn 35% less than US teachers, despite all having master's degrees (most US teachers only have a BA). And FInland has a very high cost of living, so it is even less than that to live on.
So why do they do a better job? Their union is not corrupt. They don't earn more than the parents of their students, or get luxurious benefits nobody else gets. And they can be disciplined or FIRED if they do a bad job.
I gotta repeat that: FINNISH TEACHERS can be FIRED for doing a bad job.
American teachers cannot be fired.
Finn's also start children in school at age 7 -- second grade -- and continue to age 19, and I guess, "13th grade". Children are more ready for school, to sit still and learn, at 7 -- we start children too early.
They do have subsidized (not free) day care, but it is "play school" and not geared to create little miniature robotic students. And many Finnish moms STAY HOME while their children are young!
On top of that....Finnish teachers do NOT earn more than spoiled, whinging American public union teachers. THEY EARN MUCH LESS! I was shocked to learn this, but it is true. Look it up -- Finnish teachers earn 35% less than US teachers, despite all having master's degrees (most US teachers only have a BA). And FInland has a very high cost of living, so it is even less than that to live on.
So why do they do a better job? Their union is not corrupt. They don't earn more than the parents of their students, or get luxurious benefits nobody else gets. And they can be disciplined or FIRED if they do a bad job.
I gotta repeat that: FINNISH TEACHERS can be FIRED for doing a bad job.
American teachers cannot be fired.
An interesting comment appeared in these pages a few months ago. It discussed the failure of a voucher program in another state. The commenter noted that the voucher program attracted weaker or newer schools to the program as the perceived regulatory costs that accompanied the voucher program more than offset the benefit--to the school--of participating. Thus the more successful and established private schools in that state simply declined to accept vouchers, skewing the results.
11
Saying charter successes don't come from "skimming" the best students is painfully naive. A lottery may be open but that is undermined by a) the fact that parents have to attuned enough to the system to enter in the first place and b) post lottery policies that end up driving away students the charter does not want to genuinely accommodate. Look at patterns of attrition and the differences beteeen district school demographics and those in "high performing" charter schools - these are not random differences. They are, at least partially, engineered differences.
The accountability you speak of for charter schools is undermined by the fact that their flexibility is frequently used to bypass being held accountable for all the students who seek them out.
The accountability you speak of for charter schools is undermined by the fact that their flexibility is frequently used to bypass being held accountable for all the students who seek them out.
80
This should be the foundation of all educational policy: research-based decisions. As a math teacher, it is my job to constantly look at the data for each student in each class and constantly adjust my teaching strategies to reflect this data. I may prefer a certain method of delivering instruction, but if that method shows poor results, it is incumbent upon me to alter my approach in order to achieve better results.
How or why could this be different for administrators, whether at the local, state or national levels? This isn't rocket science: if the data are available, study that data, draw appropriate conclusions, and adjust policy to reflect that data. Anything else is demagoguery.
This has nothing at all to do with conservative/liberal or progressive/traditional. It's about what works. We need to get rid of the labels - our own, and those we apply to others. If it helps students learn & grow, let's do it.
How or why could this be different for administrators, whether at the local, state or national levels? This isn't rocket science: if the data are available, study that data, draw appropriate conclusions, and adjust policy to reflect that data. Anything else is demagoguery.
This has nothing at all to do with conservative/liberal or progressive/traditional. It's about what works. We need to get rid of the labels - our own, and those we apply to others. If it helps students learn & grow, let's do it.
20
David, America is, most of all, about becoming rich, or, at this point, about some of us becoming richer and richer. Privatizing our education system will be a huge boom for the investment class, the opportunities to make a killing are so restricted by public education!
If we were really interested in improving our education system, or our health care system or our criminal justice system, etc. etc., the studies you talk about are being done much more comprehensively all around the world, in other advanced countries- but the greatest country on earth never likes to be compared to other countries who have to accomplish great things without the incomparable resources of the United States (which we just can't squander fast enough, often to help the rich get richer).
One of the greatest obstacles to having as good an education system as, say, Denmark, is the American obsession with money. Denmark can recruit many of the best of their college students to a teaching career- the best American students mostly see a teaching career as an economic dead end and teaching recruits are generally on the low-end of academic accomplishment - outside of the college level.
To get good teachers in America, money has to be a major part of the incentive. Perhaps free college for students who go on to teach for at least 10 years would be the kind of incentive to draw more of the best candidates to this profession.
If we were really interested in improving our education system, or our health care system or our criminal justice system, etc. etc., the studies you talk about are being done much more comprehensively all around the world, in other advanced countries- but the greatest country on earth never likes to be compared to other countries who have to accomplish great things without the incomparable resources of the United States (which we just can't squander fast enough, often to help the rich get richer).
One of the greatest obstacles to having as good an education system as, say, Denmark, is the American obsession with money. Denmark can recruit many of the best of their college students to a teaching career- the best American students mostly see a teaching career as an economic dead end and teaching recruits are generally on the low-end of academic accomplishment - outside of the college level.
To get good teachers in America, money has to be a major part of the incentive. Perhaps free college for students who go on to teach for at least 10 years would be the kind of incentive to draw more of the best candidates to this profession.
50
One year of college loans paid off for each year of teaching, and pay teachers like young engineers. Throw money at the problem, because working people spend the money they get, and rich people provide no multiplier at all - they don't spend any extra dollars. Keeps the economy going, and we get better education for our children.
" teaching recruits are generally on the low-end of academic accomplishment"
Not always. My daughter and her boy friend both teach at charter schools -- as a career choice not a stopping point to business or law school. Her undergrad degree in history and international relations is from Boston University. She's now a middle school history teacher. He has an engineering degree from Princeton and teaches 5th grade science.
Not everyone in America is in it for the bucks.
Not always. My daughter and her boy friend both teach at charter schools -- as a career choice not a stopping point to business or law school. Her undergrad degree in history and international relations is from Boston University. She's now a middle school history teacher. He has an engineering degree from Princeton and teaches 5th grade science.
Not everyone in America is in it for the bucks.
4
Alan - Our country has developed a sickness. It is greed. The rich get richer, and their richness never seems to satisfy them. Greed will never satisfy anything. It is an empty pursuit that leaves one with nothing other than more wealth. The state of our wealthy and our corporations greatly saddens me. They could be doing so much to lift up those in poverty, the lower class, the uneducated or undereducated. Yet they simply seek more wealth. I like to ask people I get to know why they think we are here. I would love to ask one of the 1%'ers that question. If your wealth isn't meant to help others, really, why do you think you are so special that you should horde it and not share it with those who are in dying in the streets, when you have MORE than enough?
1
I've been an educator in public, private, rural, and urban settings for close to three decades. These editorials are never correct because they are too far from the work being done and are comparing unlike situations. Comparing charters to vouchers to traditional public schools have so many variables that any scientist worth her salt would immediately balk.
In the same way that the discrepancy of incomes is plaguing America, the disparities between students is plaguing the public classroom. (of course the two are connected.) A middle school classroom of twenty often has several students reading at the college level, several on grade level and several at the early childhood level. Asking one teacher to differentiate instruction across ten grade levels is impossible.
The answer, of course, is tracking or clustering or selective groupings. Call it what you will, but students of very different abilities need separate educational delivery models and goals. While there are inherent dangers to the European model of tracked education, there are dangers within any model.
Doubling, tripling the number of trained educators in each classroom would allow for optimal student growth. Cost too high? Then admit that education is not a priority and allow DeVos and her ilk to buy their tenth vacation homes.
In the same way that the discrepancy of incomes is plaguing America, the disparities between students is plaguing the public classroom. (of course the two are connected.) A middle school classroom of twenty often has several students reading at the college level, several on grade level and several at the early childhood level. Asking one teacher to differentiate instruction across ten grade levels is impossible.
The answer, of course, is tracking or clustering or selective groupings. Call it what you will, but students of very different abilities need separate educational delivery models and goals. While there are inherent dangers to the European model of tracked education, there are dangers within any model.
Doubling, tripling the number of trained educators in each classroom would allow for optimal student growth. Cost too high? Then admit that education is not a priority and allow DeVos and her ilk to buy their tenth vacation homes.
119
"The answer, of course, is tracking or clustering or selective groupings. Call it what you will, but students of very different abilities need separate educational delivery models and goals."
Tracking lost favor in the 1970s because it made students feel bad about themselves -- you know, being in the inaptly named "dumb class." It was also thought that students who did well in school would help motivate those who did not.
Shop classes were also dropped about that time, probably because it "segregated" those who preferred working with their hands from those who had better academic skills; and educational philosophy states that all students are capable, with enough remediation, of becoming physicists.
Or possibly because school administrators decided it was too dangerous to let kids wield hammers, metal saws, and screwdrivers. A shame. My father-in-law used to recount the time when one of his shop students stopped him on the street, years later, and told him that he'd become a dental surgeon, and thank you for letting him work with all those tools.
Tracking lost favor in the 1970s because it made students feel bad about themselves -- you know, being in the inaptly named "dumb class." It was also thought that students who did well in school would help motivate those who did not.
Shop classes were also dropped about that time, probably because it "segregated" those who preferred working with their hands from those who had better academic skills; and educational philosophy states that all students are capable, with enough remediation, of becoming physicists.
Or possibly because school administrators decided it was too dangerous to let kids wield hammers, metal saws, and screwdrivers. A shame. My father-in-law used to recount the time when one of his shop students stopped him on the street, years later, and told him that he'd become a dental surgeon, and thank you for letting him work with all those tools.
2
Tracking perpetuates a race based power structure. Until we can stop tracking as a substitute for racial segregation, tracking is not a solution.
1
Your comment, sir, is the most important comment made here. This is what I experience every day in my classroom. What people may be shocked to believe is sadly I spend little time educating as a teacher. I spend most of my time managing behavior. I am in constant mode of trying to set the tone for the classroom, but rarely get to a place where deep, meaningful instruction is had. And for the record, my evaluation scores are stellar. This year I busted my hump, trying every new strategy I could to get the kids motivated to learn. I have nearly 20 years experience of instruction.
This is what happens in the inner city public classrooms. I wish someone would just say, "we are taking all the students other schools don't want." It would almost be refreshing instead of selling all the lies, that yes, you are going to college even though you can barely read at a 4th grade level in my 11th grade English class.. In our school, a movement toward "restorative justice" means no discipline at all. A few kids in every class hold the rest of the class hostage. In the meantime, the real victims, poor children who actually want to or able to learn, get thrown by the wayside. I completely understand why parents send their children to other schools. Until we deal with this issue it's all smoke and mirrors.
This is what happens in the inner city public classrooms. I wish someone would just say, "we are taking all the students other schools don't want." It would almost be refreshing instead of selling all the lies, that yes, you are going to college even though you can barely read at a 4th grade level in my 11th grade English class.. In our school, a movement toward "restorative justice" means no discipline at all. A few kids in every class hold the rest of the class hostage. In the meantime, the real victims, poor children who actually want to or able to learn, get thrown by the wayside. I completely understand why parents send their children to other schools. Until we deal with this issue it's all smoke and mirrors.
2
Any effort at redistributing education fairly will fail until the funding model is reformed. Paying for schools with local property taxes is a self perpetuating system of discrimination and gross deprivation. It makes the idea of equal education a joke.
Let's stop messing around with tiny experiments that benefit a few. Restructure education funding on a state level. Consolidate administrative structures (and costs). There is no good reason for every town or county to have "school districts" and highly paid staff. Pay the teachers more, teach every kid the same stuff and provide equality of teaching environment.
Let's stop messing around with tiny experiments that benefit a few. Restructure education funding on a state level. Consolidate administrative structures (and costs). There is no good reason for every town or county to have "school districts" and highly paid staff. Pay the teachers more, teach every kid the same stuff and provide equality of teaching environment.
86
My state [Indiana :( ] has changed away from property taxes to fund schools. The result? The wealthy suburbs get less from the state per pupil than they used to. Since everyone moves here to the wealthiest suburb for the school system, and we attract quite a few large companies because of the good schools, we now have referenda to augment the budget, and our townspeople, much as they profess to hate 'high' taxes like all Hoosiers, support these referenda. So the wealthy suburbs will not suffer quality to go down, nor will they stop funding outsized sports programs, nor give up music, arts, gym etc. They are not going to be 'ballerinas wearing sandbags' to drag their schools down to the level that the state will fund. Let the other cities and counties eat cake. And Indiana brags about its balanced budget. Pretty tough nut to crack, school funding.
That's a very simple and equitable solution, and therefore, won't happen.
1
The problem with your state-level solution is that even between states there are significant differences in available funding. New York, for instance, spends about 3 times what Utah spends per student. Some of that is due to cost of living in each state affecting salaries, but the richer states often have access to more modern equipment and supplies as well. I cannot in good conscience approve of a system that leaves kids in Oklahoma at a disadvantage solely because they live in Oklahoma.
I grew up on the poor side of a large town. We attended our neighborhood schools from grade school through middle school. To ensure that the wealthy were willing to invest in all schools for high school 15% of the kids from the wealthy side of town were bussed into the highschool that would otherwise only educate those who lived in the poor side of town. We only had one private school and it only went through 8th grade.
As a result all of our schools were kept equal. We enjoyed small class sizes and the local businesses invested in our sports, library, arts, and technology because they wanted their kids to have the best which meant we all did.
I support anything that will identity ways to strengthen our public schools and if school choice does that then so be it. But if we don't do something about our education system soon we're going to fall behind. We can't rely on immigration policies forever because we won't educate our children.
As a result all of our schools were kept equal. We enjoyed small class sizes and the local businesses invested in our sports, library, arts, and technology because they wanted their kids to have the best which meant we all did.
I support anything that will identity ways to strengthen our public schools and if school choice does that then so be it. But if we don't do something about our education system soon we're going to fall behind. We can't rely on immigration policies forever because we won't educate our children.
6
Let's stop talking about charter schools like they universally "work." There is no evidence they produce better results by design alone. When they do work, they represent a lifeboat that only the lucky kids with involved parents get to board. The rest are essentially left behind--a point that this author, like most who support charters, conveniently glosses over. The point of public education is that everyone get a sound education no matter who their parents are, where they live, or how wealthy they are. We should be focused on ensuring that. In fact, the health of our republic depends on it.
Take this all to the final and obvious answer: Since charter schools can be more successful, educate better, because they are outside of the usual bureaucracy, then we should close all public school and enroll all children in charter schools.
No vouchers would be necessary. No more dangerous schools. There will be rigorous evaluation and oversight everywhere. All schools will be good schools. Every kid will go to college (just as soon as folks can come up with more inventive, more "accessible" majors)
Problem solved.
No vouchers would be necessary. No more dangerous schools. There will be rigorous evaluation and oversight everywhere. All schools will be good schools. Every kid will go to college (just as soon as folks can come up with more inventive, more "accessible" majors)
Problem solved.
6
Nice article.
My issue with charters: lotteries. Parents wait for results,and sometimes for what amounts to a golden ticket. Are the charters removing pressure to hold the rest of the schools to a reasonable standard? Any policy that leaves the local school a dumping ground, or a potential dumping ground, needs evaluation for fairness.
My issue with charters: lotteries. Parents wait for results,and sometimes for what amounts to a golden ticket. Are the charters removing pressure to hold the rest of the schools to a reasonable standard? Any policy that leaves the local school a dumping ground, or a potential dumping ground, needs evaluation for fairness.
12
By most accounts Massachusetts has some of the best charter schools in the country, but they are "public" only in that the state licenses and oversees them. Local communities pay for them but have no say in how they operate. When students opt to attend charter schools, the truly public schools (which are overseen by the communities that pay for them, not the state) lose funds; and the students who are left behind wind up with larger classes and fewer options in subjects like art, drama, and music that are not measured by standardized tests.
The basis for funding charter schools is misguided; it assumes that each child is entitled to their portion of what a school system spends for education, and that he/she may take it to a school outside the district. Charter schools would not be contentious if Massachusetts paid for the schools it licenses with state tax revenue rather than hurting local communities and the students left behind. Who can argue with any school which lives up to its mission of high expectations and high support for student success?
The basis for funding charter schools is misguided; it assumes that each child is entitled to their portion of what a school system spends for education, and that he/she may take it to a school outside the district. Charter schools would not be contentious if Massachusetts paid for the schools it licenses with state tax revenue rather than hurting local communities and the students left behind. Who can argue with any school which lives up to its mission of high expectations and high support for student success?
17
Here are the results from a Stanford Education study on Boston Traditional Public Schools (TPS) vs the Charters:
"In fact, the average growth rate of Boston charter students in math and reading is the largest CREDO has seen in any city or state thus far. At the school level, 83 percent of the charter schools have significantly more positive learning gains than their TPS counterparts in reading and math, while no Boston charter schools have significantly lower learning gains."
https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/MAReportFinal_000.pdf
"In fact, the average growth rate of Boston charter students in math and reading is the largest CREDO has seen in any city or state thus far. At the school level, 83 percent of the charter schools have significantly more positive learning gains than their TPS counterparts in reading and math, while no Boston charter schools have significantly lower learning gains."
https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/MAReportFinal_000.pdf
2
Massachusetts also has the best public schools in the country, so no surprise here. In Massasachusetts, EDUCATION is not a dirty word.
And MA consistently has the highest scores in the country. What's your point?
The research I have done suggests that overall charter schools do not do better than traditional public schools. Mixed results come from New Orleans, Chicago and Washing, DC, for example. The one constant is the direct correlation between rates of poverty and school performance. The mere fact that a student is admitted to a charter school suggests her parents are sufficiently engaged in the student's education to take the initiative to sign their child up for a lottery. And once the student is admitted, the parents often have to be willing to follow and help enforce strict rules of conduct - again demonstrating parental involvement. With fewer than 10 percent of students enrolled in charter schools, it is difficult to know whether they would have performed at the same level in traditional public schools as they are in charter schools. The real challenge is how to make schools better for the vast majority of students in traditional public schools, whose educational mission to serve ALL students is daunting. If we are serious, we must recognize that poverty is the first obstacle that needs to be overcome. And traditional public schools can not afford to have their limited resources further diminished by the transfer of public funds to charter schools, which too often are non-profit in name only.
Fascinating analysis with lots of data links, offering a balanced perspective in its conclusion.
The NYT at its best! Thank you for publishing this opinion piece.
The NYT at its best! Thank you for publishing this opinion piece.
2
I hear nightmare after nightmare about charter schools and suddenly they are the cure for all that ails us? Sorry, I don't buy it. Sounds like a case of cherry-picked data to me.
17
Long Island, where I live, has some of the best public schools in the nation. The difference, I think, is not so much charter vs traditional vs vouchers but the extent of parental involvement in their children's education.
Throwing money around is not going to solve the problems. Parents need to be more involved. About parental involvement, a Harvard Study concluded:
"First, the results are fairly substantial and support the belief that parental involvement has a significant impact across various populations. Second, not only does voluntary parental involvement have an influence, but parental programs do as well. Therefore, schools should adopt strategies to enhance parental engagement in their children's schooling. Third, teachers, principals, and school counselors should familiarize themselves with the facets of parental involvement that can help the most, so that they can guide parents on what steps they can take to become more involved. These include time-intensive parental involvement activities such as reading to one's children and communicating with them, and subtle involvement activities like parental style and expectations. Given the substantial influence of parental involvement, educators should consistently encourage parents to become more involved in their children's schooling."
It is easier said than done, of course, but efforts to get parents involved will be worth it.
Throwing money around is not going to solve the problems. Parents need to be more involved. About parental involvement, a Harvard Study concluded:
"First, the results are fairly substantial and support the belief that parental involvement has a significant impact across various populations. Second, not only does voluntary parental involvement have an influence, but parental programs do as well. Therefore, schools should adopt strategies to enhance parental engagement in their children's schooling. Third, teachers, principals, and school counselors should familiarize themselves with the facets of parental involvement that can help the most, so that they can guide parents on what steps they can take to become more involved. These include time-intensive parental involvement activities such as reading to one's children and communicating with them, and subtle involvement activities like parental style and expectations. Given the substantial influence of parental involvement, educators should consistently encourage parents to become more involved in their children's schooling."
It is easier said than done, of course, but efforts to get parents involved will be worth it.
16
Long Island also has some of the highest teacher salaries. This attracts more applicants and gives the schools the ability to choose the best. Compare this to NYC with its lower salaries where there are often too few applicants to fill all open positions. NYC has to take what they can get.
As a public school teacher with over 20 years of experience, I agree. There is a culture of complacency surrounding many of our public schools: "Why should my child work harder than I did in high school?" The public, private, and charter schools that flourish enjoy strong parental and community support. If we want to make education our top priority, which it should be, then we must change the culture.
Money is important. With money, you can get computers which are vital to a student's future success. With money you can buy textbooks and equip a library. With money you can feed the children who have no food at home because hunger and malnutrition affect academic performance. With money you can get a small class size so hopefully a student will get more attention. With money you can attract the best and the brightest to teach. (they do have to pay their student loans. I am sure that others could come up with many more reasons why money is important to academic success.
We have a choice, we can spend it on a great education or spend it on the unemployed and those in prison. A great education is priceless and is something no one and nothing can take away from you.
We have a choice, we can spend it on a great education or spend it on the unemployed and those in prison. A great education is priceless and is something no one and nothing can take away from you.
While charter schools may perform better, many of them have the luxury of removing any student who is a behavioral problem or who appears likely to perform below average. Not only is this incredibly unjust, it also skews their performance metrics.
Perhaps if charters were held to a higher standard, we might find that they are no better (or worse) than most public schools.
Perhaps if charters were held to a higher standard, we might find that they are no better (or worse) than most public schools.
20
Until charters are university required to meet the same benchmarks of traditional public schools, it is misleading to say charters are doing as well or better. In Michigan, DeVos spent millions pressuring state legislators to pass laws to help charter schools to keep their statistics from the public. Mr Leonhart is Cherry picking statistics. The Detroit schools and the New Orleans schools have the highest rate of for profit chargers in the nation and at the same time some of the lowest performing charter schools.
Parents must ask themselves:
Does the charter school near me Service the same percentage of special education students as the traditional school?
Does the charter school near me Service the same percentage of special needs students as the traditional school?
Does the charter school near me expel a higher proportion of its students than the traditional school near me?
Before we put a shiny red Apple on the desk of charter schools, we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
Parents must ask themselves:
Does the charter school near me Service the same percentage of special education students as the traditional school?
Does the charter school near me Service the same percentage of special needs students as the traditional school?
Does the charter school near me expel a higher proportion of its students than the traditional school near me?
Before we put a shiny red Apple on the desk of charter schools, we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.
40
Dear Troy Still,
My son teaches at a charter school in Houston, Texas. His school is required to measure up to the same benchmarks as the public schools. In Texas these are called STAR. His performance evaluation at the school is tied almost 100% to how well his students do on the STAR testing. His school happens to be one of the highest scoring ones in the state.
By the way, as opposed to what some here are claiming, the school does not cherry pick students and a good 50% of his students come from the poorer neighborhoods in southwest Houston.
My son teaches at a charter school in Houston, Texas. His school is required to measure up to the same benchmarks as the public schools. In Texas these are called STAR. His performance evaluation at the school is tied almost 100% to how well his students do on the STAR testing. His school happens to be one of the highest scoring ones in the state.
By the way, as opposed to what some here are claiming, the school does not cherry pick students and a good 50% of his students come from the poorer neighborhoods in southwest Houston.
2
If you are not parent of a special ed student or a disciplinary problem, why would you want your kid to attend a school that takes 'its fair share' of special ed and problem kids. You can't expect parents to seek fairness before personal advantage. That's practically unAmerican.
2
I would like to know in the study of vouchers did the study segregate out results in catholic schools? And compare them to charter and public schools.
3
The author seems to be either not in possession of the data on how charter schools work, or has succumbed to the siren song of "school choice."
As elsewhere, here in PA there are more traditional brick and mortar charter schools and cyber charter schools. They're public schools that are funded by tax dollars, with home districts sending money along with the student straining already tight budgets.
Of these, the cyber charter schools have been found especially wanting in terms of student progress. In reality, what often happens is that a student will enroll in a cyber charter and then fall behind. Many eventually re-enroll in their home district where they aren't performing on a level with their cohort. The district then has to provide remediation, further straining limited resources.
As to the brick and mortar charter schools, the quality of education also varies widely. The Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania found that only 1 in 6 charter schools are considered "high-performing" on the school performance profile standard that public schools are judged by in PA.
Charter schools do not meet the transparency standards to which traditional public schools are held. Corruption has led to federal fraud charges at several schools across PA.
So, if they are to be a part of the effort to improve education in our country then they must be held to the same standards of educational achievement and financial transparency as traditional public schools.
As elsewhere, here in PA there are more traditional brick and mortar charter schools and cyber charter schools. They're public schools that are funded by tax dollars, with home districts sending money along with the student straining already tight budgets.
Of these, the cyber charter schools have been found especially wanting in terms of student progress. In reality, what often happens is that a student will enroll in a cyber charter and then fall behind. Many eventually re-enroll in their home district where they aren't performing on a level with their cohort. The district then has to provide remediation, further straining limited resources.
As to the brick and mortar charter schools, the quality of education also varies widely. The Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania found that only 1 in 6 charter schools are considered "high-performing" on the school performance profile standard that public schools are judged by in PA.
Charter schools do not meet the transparency standards to which traditional public schools are held. Corruption has led to federal fraud charges at several schools across PA.
So, if they are to be a part of the effort to improve education in our country then they must be held to the same standards of educational achievement and financial transparency as traditional public schools.
David, there's so much more than bottom line results involved in your op-ed. I've served in public and private schools for 49 years, 14 in public and the remainder as a teacher and headmaster in private/independent schools. Differences among school types can be striking, especially in terms of daily academic requirements, school ethos, and academic goals. Comparisons by way of longitudinal studies of public, parochial, and independent/ private schools in terms of those easy to measure "bottom line" goals have placed independent/private schools as clearly superior as a group. Not enough space exists to describe the major and subtle reasons why this is the case; however, what is true, and very sad, is that some public schools are national standouts, but most are mediocre or worse. Studies of Finland public schools as well as those outstanding American public schools reveal some of the dramatic differences in just how striking good public schools in Finland and America can be. I can state, with some certainty, that simply "on boarding" a transfer student who has suffered in a poorly performing public school into a high achieving independent/private school hardly guarantees academic success for those students--and simply providing parents with vouchers and guaranteeing a students' attendance can not yield instant success as measured by standardized test scores--as you can easily imagine, so much more is in play.
6
There is the factor of parental participation that is always overlooked. Charter and private schools demand it and if the parents don't do their part their child is sent back to the public system. The combined demand and threat forces the parents to be part of the educational process. There are few, if any, demands for parental participation in the public system.
Yes, some children succeed despite lack of parental involvement, but they are rare and usually late-bloomers who discover their talent when somebody other than the parents take an active interest in them. (FWIW: This was my personal experience.)
The reality is that it takes a lot more than just a teacher to raise a child. It takes a lot of committed people and it isn't easy. If there is a "single answer" it is the commitment of more than just one family/institution that makes the real difference.
Yes, some children succeed despite lack of parental involvement, but they are rare and usually late-bloomers who discover their talent when somebody other than the parents take an active interest in them. (FWIW: This was my personal experience.)
The reality is that it takes a lot more than just a teacher to raise a child. It takes a lot of committed people and it isn't easy. If there is a "single answer" it is the commitment of more than just one family/institution that makes the real difference.
4
Dear George N. Wells,
You are spot on. My son teaches school in Houston and he says that unless the parents are interested it is very unlikely that the student will be. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
People want to beat up the public schools when they do poorly, but the reason is not funding, it is parents.
Sadly, too large a percentage of the parents of children in many public schools in poorer neighborhoods do not care about education enough to get involved.
You are spot on. My son teaches school in Houston and he says that unless the parents are interested it is very unlikely that the student will be. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
People want to beat up the public schools when they do poorly, but the reason is not funding, it is parents.
Sadly, too large a percentage of the parents of children in many public schools in poorer neighborhoods do not care about education enough to get involved.
1
@gpickard: making education dependent on "good parents" means that teachers have GIVEN UP.
Funny -- back in the early 20th century (BEFORE PUBLIC UNIONS), teachers could teach ANY kid -- the kid who didn't speak any English, the immigrants from 100 different nations, the very poor kid, the working class kid -- the kid whose parents worked 18 hour days in sweat shops and paid them no attention -- who didn't speak English and couldn't help with homework or anything else.
BUT THEY ALL LEARNED.
So it isn't the parents at all.
It's the lazy, whinging, gold-bricking, clock-watching, overpaid public union teachers.
Funny -- back in the early 20th century (BEFORE PUBLIC UNIONS), teachers could teach ANY kid -- the kid who didn't speak any English, the immigrants from 100 different nations, the very poor kid, the working class kid -- the kid whose parents worked 18 hour days in sweat shops and paid them no attention -- who didn't speak English and couldn't help with homework or anything else.
BUT THEY ALL LEARNED.
So it isn't the parents at all.
It's the lazy, whinging, gold-bricking, clock-watching, overpaid public union teachers.
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best. And the schools’ benefits extend beyond test scores to more meaningful metrics, like college graduation.'
Yes, charter schools are open to all comers, but only students with highly invested parents come and invested parents are the most important factor in student success!! Further, since charter schools tend lack resources for students with special needs and reserve the right to expel students from everything from excessive tardiness to minor behavior infractions, their population becomes even more select. Only when ALL students are automatically entered into the lotteries, charter schools begin serving children with ALL needs and they must retain ALL the students that enroll can any meaningful comparison between public and charter schools be made.
Yes, charter schools are open to all comers, but only students with highly invested parents come and invested parents are the most important factor in student success!! Further, since charter schools tend lack resources for students with special needs and reserve the right to expel students from everything from excessive tardiness to minor behavior infractions, their population becomes even more select. Only when ALL students are automatically entered into the lotteries, charter schools begin serving children with ALL needs and they must retain ALL the students that enroll can any meaningful comparison between public and charter schools be made.
9
The evidence of the efficacy, however measured, of charter schools, is mixed. Charter schools do not necessarily produce "better" results than traditional schools. That's the research.
9
I recall the Kennedy School of Government studied the voucher idea, in nine different formats, when the idea first cropped up in the early 1970s. A couple were marginally workable if properly funded and administered effectively, both of which are constant challenges, but all had serious flaws. One which this article doesn't mention, but which is inherent possibility, is re-segregation of schools along the lines of race, religion, income and other non-educational factors like athletic potential (vouchers could be a boon for Texas high school football).
2
There is another, less mentioned, issue in many cities regarding education- the downstream impact of desegregation by assigning kids schools instead of neighborhood schools has undermined public education throughout America.
It is not great secret that Parents buy school districts as much as they buy a particular home. The question about schools is never far from the top of the list when people talk about moving or buying a new home. Desegregation detached a quality neighborhood school from the property in many American cities and towns and helped drive white flight, sprawl and erosion of the tax base of many city school districts.
America 2017 is a very different place from America 1970 and the practice of putting kids on a Bus and shipping them around was and is, in aggregate, a failure. Had we spent the money wasted on buying buses and fuel on schools and teachers we would be in a much better place today.
We need to get back to neighborhood schools. The generations coming in to prime parenthood have shown a tendency to live in older city neighborhoods instead of the White Flight Suburbs, but will not likely send their kids to marginal schools that are not localized by neighborhood. We can rebuild community and stabilize our cities in part by going back to neighborhood schools where parents know if I buy on this street my kids go to this school. The same is true for taxes- that the school taxes I pay are supporting my kid's education.
It is not great secret that Parents buy school districts as much as they buy a particular home. The question about schools is never far from the top of the list when people talk about moving or buying a new home. Desegregation detached a quality neighborhood school from the property in many American cities and towns and helped drive white flight, sprawl and erosion of the tax base of many city school districts.
America 2017 is a very different place from America 1970 and the practice of putting kids on a Bus and shipping them around was and is, in aggregate, a failure. Had we spent the money wasted on buying buses and fuel on schools and teachers we would be in a much better place today.
We need to get back to neighborhood schools. The generations coming in to prime parenthood have shown a tendency to live in older city neighborhoods instead of the White Flight Suburbs, but will not likely send their kids to marginal schools that are not localized by neighborhood. We can rebuild community and stabilize our cities in part by going back to neighborhood schools where parents know if I buy on this street my kids go to this school. The same is true for taxes- that the school taxes I pay are supporting my kid's education.
7
I wish you'd do more research -real research - into charter schools. Charter schools don't serve the same populations as their host school districts. They typically serve fewer poor students and English-language learners. In Red Bank NJ, about 40% of the students who attend the Red Bank charter qualify for free-or reduced lunches while about 89% of the public school students do. Nearly half of the public school students are English-language learners while only 4% of the charter school students are. There is a huge racial disparity as well. And yet Gov Christie has held charter schools harmless to cuts in state aid, so that the Red Bank charter's per-pupil cost is more than $19,000, which is $2,000 more than the per-pupil cost of the public school. So the wealthier and whiter charter school can afford two teachers for each class, boutique fitness classes, and a $1.7M expansion. Meanwhile the predominantly poor and Hispanic public school is short more than two dozen teachers and can't afford to fix the roof. How is this far?
15
In Paterson, the public schools have seen years and years of budget cuts since Christie came in , yet Charters are growing the the public schools demise. In reality we have a 2 tiered "separate but unequal" system that 1954's Brown v Board of Ed was supposed to have outlawed. No wonder the NAACP is coming out against Charters. Also if you look at Christie's campaign coffers, Charter school operators are some of his biggest contributors.
1
Charters may be many things -- good or bad -- but they are definitely NOT WHITE.
Charter schools are overwhelmingly black and hispanic. Many are 100% black. Most of the teachers are black.
This is not a "white against black" issue.
Charter schools are overwhelmingly black and hispanic. Many are 100% black. Most of the teachers are black.
This is not a "white against black" issue.
Anyone really interested in whether charter schools perform better, worse, or the same as neighborhood schools should demand randomized assignment to one or the other, not "lotteries" that preselect those already motivated and hence more likely to achieve. Numerous instances of charters cherry-picking students so that they do not have to deal with disabilities (physical, emotional, mental), then pushing out those who still can't meet their standards, bias any legitimate comparisons. Even so, charters have been found to perform no better than public schools on average. They should not be permitted to divert resources from the true public schools.
9
Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best."
Actually they do skim the best... families. Charters usually operate on lotteries that must be entered by the parents. This leaves public schools in their districts to educate greater concentrations of children from the most dysfunctional homes. Who puts in an application for the child of the incarcerated or addicted or abusive or negligent or simply indifferent parent?
Actually they do skim the best... families. Charters usually operate on lotteries that must be entered by the parents. This leaves public schools in their districts to educate greater concentrations of children from the most dysfunctional homes. Who puts in an application for the child of the incarcerated or addicted or abusive or negligent or simply indifferent parent?
6
In my experience with public schools in 1929 – 1941, those schools were the glue that held the community together. It seems that nowadays there is little interest in holding the community together.
13
You are 100% correct.
That glue was dissolved -- ON PURPOSE -- by lefty liberals in the late 60s, who demanded forced bussing for integration. EVERYONE hated it, and the families that could move away -- did move -- gutting our cities and leaving many of them permanently hollowed out.
Another glorious example of lefty liberalism in action.
That glue was dissolved -- ON PURPOSE -- by lefty liberals in the late 60s, who demanded forced bussing for integration. EVERYONE hated it, and the families that could move away -- did move -- gutting our cities and leaving many of them permanently hollowed out.
Another glorious example of lefty liberalism in action.
Thank you for finally help establish the fact that vouchers and charters should not be considered part of the same movement. I firmly believe in the power of public education as an equalizing force, and private education, with no oversight, plays no part in that.
1
There is a model out there already and we know it works a very high percentage of times for kids in the worst neighborhoods. Over and over again, the community adopts star athletes from broken families and directs them to schools where they succeed both academically and at their chosen sport. If communities bond and treat every kid as special, the results will be impressive. Local values and financial support can create a model where every kid is special and in a position ti achieve at high levels.
One of my primary objections to vouchers is their potential to fill the coffers of religious/parochial schools. Should taxpayers settle for having public funds go to the support of a parochial school? Of which religion(s)?
Also worth noting: Whether the school is a traditional public school, a charter school, or a school laced with voucher students, school officials and lawmakers must be vigilant in their oversight of all schools and take swift action to address any and all deficiencies regardless of where those deficiencies surface. Student academics and safety need to be the two primary variables examined.
Also worth noting: Whether the school is a traditional public school, a charter school, or a school laced with voucher students, school officials and lawmakers must be vigilant in their oversight of all schools and take swift action to address any and all deficiencies regardless of where those deficiencies surface. Student academics and safety need to be the two primary variables examined.
1
Mr. Leonhardt states:
"But I would encourage you to look at the full evidence with an open mind. Charters have the potential to help a lot of poor children in the immediate future, and it’s hard to think of a more important progressive goal."
This is a good objective as far as it go, but as the old saying goes, the 'devil is in the details.' In Ms. DeVos's home state (Michigan) where she and her family have given Republican politicians millions upon millions of dollars to do her bidding on charter schools, the issue of accountability of these schools has conveniently been omitted and the focus has been on destroying public schools (She calls them 'government schools'). The system of charters in Michigan is characterized as the "Wild West" by national charter organizations and, other than making a lot of money for the profiteers, most do no better than public schools, despite the hype and overselling of "choice."
"But I would encourage you to look at the full evidence with an open mind. Charters have the potential to help a lot of poor children in the immediate future, and it’s hard to think of a more important progressive goal."
This is a good objective as far as it go, but as the old saying goes, the 'devil is in the details.' In Ms. DeVos's home state (Michigan) where she and her family have given Republican politicians millions upon millions of dollars to do her bidding on charter schools, the issue of accountability of these schools has conveniently been omitted and the focus has been on destroying public schools (She calls them 'government schools'). The system of charters in Michigan is characterized as the "Wild West" by national charter organizations and, other than making a lot of money for the profiteers, most do no better than public schools, despite the hype and overselling of "choice."
5
The basic purpose of charter schools is to eliminate teachers unions. Charter schools have an extraordinarily high turnover rate, akin to a fast food restaurant, because teachers have to work longer days and longer years and have no union protection. Many get burned out within five years and either leave the profession entirely or are lucky enough to find a job in a public school.
11
That was me, I worked in a Charter and was expected to work forced unpaid overtime for a false carrot that was never achieved no matter how hard you worked. Also there was the unethical practices of grade inflating and the director would change standardized test scores to make the school look better and keep it pen. I got a union teaching job making more money and benefits the next year.
That is the hope -- and I pray it will eventually work.
Public unions have destroyed education in the USA for the past 40+ years.
Until they are gone, there is no hope of any real reforms.
Public unions have destroyed education in the USA for the past 40+ years.
Until they are gone, there is no hope of any real reforms.
In my well off "progressive" suburb, my neighbors overwhelmingly voted against a measure which would allow for more charters in MA. Of course, many of them moved here from Boston or other districts where the public schools are not performing well. (The oldest is about to turn 5, time to move...) Rents and mortgages are astronomical and continue increasing. I find it hypocritical and offensive that they take away school choice from families who can not afford to move to their neighborhood. Sure they blindingly support public schools and oppose charters because their children are in good ones. If your child isn't, well too bad.
4
Great articulation of the issue. Much appreciated. This is another reason, to change subjects, why America needs a free and active press.
1
The author cites a couple of controversial case studies in favor of charter schools but omits all the unfavorable ones, like Betsy DeVos' own Michigan experiment. He also omits to mention that charter schools are in most cases far less regulated than public schools, including with respect to finances. In most cases, accountability and transparency for charter schools is a dream, not reality. And he falsely claims that skimming doesn't happen even though it has been confirmed by many studies that charter school student composition tends to differ from public schools, mostly due to their ability to exclude unwanted students.
This topic is hotly debated among education experts. To claim that there is an easy formula for education success, backed by facts and evidence, is totally irresponsible.
This topic is hotly debated among education experts. To claim that there is an easy formula for education success, backed by facts and evidence, is totally irresponsible.
5
Charters can be a useful tool after efforts to support local public schools have been exhausted. But vouchers are simply a taxpayer subsidy to those who have other choices. Mick Mulvaney, in response to a question about government support for the CPB, said 'Can we really continue to ask a coal miner in West Virginia or a single mom in Detroit to pay for these programs?' So, let's rephrase that question. Can we really ask a coal miner or single mom to support my choice to send my child to a private or parochial school? Where's the justice in that?
DL contrasts the two caricatures, saying that defenders of public schools are for teacher training. That may be, but it's the high-achieving charter networks (KIPP, Uncommon, many others, though obviously not all...) that invest heavily in rigorous, daily, empirically based teacher training that works quickly to close the gap.
"Many charter schools are open to all comers." Really? How about students with disabilities? Yet, these schools get public funds with no responsibility for offering all comers a public education, while non-charters must.
The mission of charter schools was to provide an opportunity for educators to have classrooms where new teaching methods could be incubated, tried and improved, evaluated for efficacy and the results desseminated to the whole of public schools. Where is the evidence this has happened? Has this part of the rationale for charters been forgotten? With public funds being used for charter schools -- which are not accountable for educating all comers -- we seem to be back to "separate but equal" for students with disabilities.
The mission of charter schools was to provide an opportunity for educators to have classrooms where new teaching methods could be incubated, tried and improved, evaluated for efficacy and the results desseminated to the whole of public schools. Where is the evidence this has happened? Has this part of the rationale for charters been forgotten? With public funds being used for charter schools -- which are not accountable for educating all comers -- we seem to be back to "separate but equal" for students with disabilities.
5
Are the successful charters non-profit or for-profit? I keep reading about for-profit charters that are scams of one sort or another? I confess to a profound distrust of taxes going to a for-profit enterprise without rigorous oversight by the government, hence my distrust of and disgust with the Littoral Combat ship and the X-35. The same seems to apply to for-profit charters.
3
The difference this article finds between vouchers and charters seems to be that a charter school has oversight and standards to meet, vouchers can be handed out with none of the above. This points to the need for good oversight to improve schools.
"Crucially, many charters are open to all comers, which means their success doesn’t stem from skimming off the best." This is the hub of the objection to increased charter schools, for in the unnuanced version stated here, it is simply false. While charters may technically be "open to all comers", the truth is that in many of the neediest communities, especially those in which generational poverty is the norm, far too many families simply do not have the wherewithal to get applications in and follow up with interviews. This leaves a "high risk pool" of another nature when charter bound children leave. The result is a traditional school saddled with an overcrowded, understaffed, pedagogically needy population. In one Brooklyn school I witnessed, a well provided charter was housed in the same building as a traditional school whose impoverishment became glaringly clear by comparison. No one was going to make a difference in the lives of the children who were indeed left behind.
6
A lot of us assume that public education has always been a feature of the United States. We forget that, as a state responsibility, it varied across the nation with lots of differences in quality and even purpose. It was not until the early 20th century, that the standard became universal education for all children of certain ages. Even that did not guarantee equal access to education, but it did make teaching a feminine occupation because women had so few opportunities and educated women of intelligence were willing to work for low wages in bad working conditions.
We are at a new inflection point in what education ought to be and how it ought to be organized. We could look around the world for examples of how other nations approach the problem, but that does not seem to be the way the United States approaches any problem.
The idea that local control would prevent the state from indoctrinating children has been powerful. Today, we see it in arguments that parents should be able to choose what they think is best for their children. Seen another way, that means that parents own their children and have a right to determine their futures.
It bears mentioning that the influential teachers' union leader, Al Shanker, supported the idea of charter schools as a way to innovate in public education. He saw them as a way to build teacher leadership and make teaching more professional. That does not mean that the idea will always work to improve public education.
We are at a new inflection point in what education ought to be and how it ought to be organized. We could look around the world for examples of how other nations approach the problem, but that does not seem to be the way the United States approaches any problem.
The idea that local control would prevent the state from indoctrinating children has been powerful. Today, we see it in arguments that parents should be able to choose what they think is best for their children. Seen another way, that means that parents own their children and have a right to determine their futures.
It bears mentioning that the influential teachers' union leader, Al Shanker, supported the idea of charter schools as a way to innovate in public education. He saw them as a way to build teacher leadership and make teaching more professional. That does not mean that the idea will always work to improve public education.
Al Shankar ALSO famous said that "I'll care about children, when they pay dues to my union".
The problem IS THE UNIONS. Public unions are inherently corrupt. Teacher unions are THE most powerful public unions. They utterly, totally control public education -- and have GUTTED It for 45 years, so they can get lavish salaries and luxe benefits and huge pensions.
The problem IS THE UNIONS. Public unions are inherently corrupt. Teacher unions are THE most powerful public unions. They utterly, totally control public education -- and have GUTTED It for 45 years, so they can get lavish salaries and luxe benefits and huge pensions.
I say no vouchers. Under the guise of helping the poor children who are getting a substandard education in the public schools, voucher proponents have increasing lifted the ceiling on the amount of money a family of four can make to qualify for vouchers. How many free and reduced lunch recipients are taking advantage of vouchers? I would like to see the statistics. Vouchers are a subsidy not scholarships as they are called here in Indiana. It still boggles my mind that vouchers are available for religious schools. Do not tell me the voucher money is not being used for religious instruction. Seriously, how can that be separated?
I find it ironic that certified teachers are not required by private schools receiving vouchers and depending on the state, the percentage of certified staff mandated for a charter school varies. It is often in the 50% range. How do these more relaxed rules help with quality control?
Charter schools need more oversight. Admittedly, there are charter schools where self-control and academics are valued - just as in public schools - but the difference is - the parent has to "buy in" ; whereas, in a public school the parent has options not to. I could write more about how other issues with charter schools: run by for profit companies, no elected school officials holding open meetings, putting kids in front of computers for hours at a time, making sure enrollment is up on the "count" day in the fall before the bad apples are thrown out..but I won't
I find it ironic that certified teachers are not required by private schools receiving vouchers and depending on the state, the percentage of certified staff mandated for a charter school varies. It is often in the 50% range. How do these more relaxed rules help with quality control?
Charter schools need more oversight. Admittedly, there are charter schools where self-control and academics are valued - just as in public schools - but the difference is - the parent has to "buy in" ; whereas, in a public school the parent has options not to. I could write more about how other issues with charter schools: run by for profit companies, no elected school officials holding open meetings, putting kids in front of computers for hours at a time, making sure enrollment is up on the "count" day in the fall before the bad apples are thrown out..but I won't
3
I explained last week, from my vantage of a PhD in early education, that the study was methodologically flawed, even got posted here and a few up-votes
and in my opinion, not a reliable analysis,
and sent my thoughts, all 1500 characters, to the study's chief author, and of course have heard nothing but how important these flawed results are
piffle
and yes I am a Trump zealot, agnostic on vouchers, but zealous on methodology
wonks of the world unite! or is that quants?
and in my opinion, not a reliable analysis,
and sent my thoughts, all 1500 characters, to the study's chief author, and of course have heard nothing but how important these flawed results are
piffle
and yes I am a Trump zealot, agnostic on vouchers, but zealous on methodology
wonks of the world unite! or is that quants?
1
"Parents can make informed choices to better their children's future" is a fallacy of school-choice:
How many of you were raised by a single mother with two or more jobs? How many of you were raised by parents who didn't speak the local language? Etc., Etc.. Today, school choice works for only those who have the luxury of time to survey, evaluate, and apply -- all of which takes enormous resources. The first priority of school choice should be a well structured support system (aides, consultants, and organizers) to help guide hard-pressed parents to make these decisions, even if many of which would likely recommend staying in the local precinct....
P.S. Gawd I dislike the woman that is wearing blue in the lead picture .
How many of you were raised by a single mother with two or more jobs? How many of you were raised by parents who didn't speak the local language? Etc., Etc.. Today, school choice works for only those who have the luxury of time to survey, evaluate, and apply -- all of which takes enormous resources. The first priority of school choice should be a well structured support system (aides, consultants, and organizers) to help guide hard-pressed parents to make these decisions, even if many of which would likely recommend staying in the local precinct....
P.S. Gawd I dislike the woman that is wearing blue in the lead picture .
It doesn't take being a progressive to make me squeamish about charter schools. They are ripping off both the students and the taxpayers of Michigan, which spends about $1 billion on charters each year. This state has vigorous laws to encourage charters and feeble laws to regulate them.
Michigan leads the nation in for-profit operators of charter schools -- 61%. An additional 17% of charter schools that are ostensibly nonprofit use for-profit companies for services such as staffing and human resources.
Educational outcomes have been disappointing. The Detroit Free Press conducted a review of charter schools early this year and found that "...38% of charter schools that received state academic rankings during the 2012-13 school year fell below the 25th percentile, meaning at least 75% of all schools in the state performed better. Only 23% of traditional public schools fell below the 25th percentile."
In theory, charter schools are public and are required to accept all students in the same way as traditional public schools. It doesn't work that way for many students and for many reasons. "Choice" often is a phantom concept.
You may read the whole sad story of Michigan's charter schools here:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/06/22/michigan-spend...
Michigan leads the nation in for-profit operators of charter schools -- 61%. An additional 17% of charter schools that are ostensibly nonprofit use for-profit companies for services such as staffing and human resources.
Educational outcomes have been disappointing. The Detroit Free Press conducted a review of charter schools early this year and found that "...38% of charter schools that received state academic rankings during the 2012-13 school year fell below the 25th percentile, meaning at least 75% of all schools in the state performed better. Only 23% of traditional public schools fell below the 25th percentile."
In theory, charter schools are public and are required to accept all students in the same way as traditional public schools. It doesn't work that way for many students and for many reasons. "Choice" often is a phantom concept.
You may read the whole sad story of Michigan's charter schools here:
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2014/06/22/michigan-spend...
6
I support "choice" as the public schools are not doing it. So much for the "unions" and their supporters underperformance with American education.
Point well made. However reading and math scores are simplistic ways for evaluating results. The recent election is clear evidence that citizenship, cultural awareness, and critical thinking have been swallowed by an overemphasis on reading comprehension and math. Moreover, some serious thought needs to be given to education that is more than an echo chamber for local mindsets and values. Informed citizens in a culturally diverse and tightly connected global community are vital to the future. Reading and math are necessary tools for informed citizens. But numbers and words can be manipulated, and tribal thinking can overwhelm the truth.
1
I do not know how Mr. Leonhardt's data was disaggregated, but there are few factors that have to be considered.
1) Charters may take all who fit and who apply, but they do not take all of the students in a neighborhood, as do traditional schools. This is a crucial difference that many outside of education do not check for. Readers of Leonhardt's article have an interest in and, presumably, care about education. This is, sadly, more than is true for too many parents in their care for their own children. If you do not or have not worked in a school as a counselor, social worker, or administrator, you are going to have to take my word on this. Charters take those who apply and this is more effort than some parents would make for their children. It tears my heart out most every day.
2) Charters serve very few special education students and they certainly do not serve the most impaired kids. These children are included in test scores. Many charters actively talk parents out of having their children attend their schools.
3) In Betsy DeVos's Michigan she has actively discouraged meaningful oversight of charter schools. Charters in Michigan do not score better than traditional schools. What DeVos had advocated for is unregulated schools. Many of these schools are simply means to transfer public dollars to the coffers of private charter companies. Giving DeVos ammo supporting charters is not going to cause her to become an advocate for equal regulation.
1) Charters may take all who fit and who apply, but they do not take all of the students in a neighborhood, as do traditional schools. This is a crucial difference that many outside of education do not check for. Readers of Leonhardt's article have an interest in and, presumably, care about education. This is, sadly, more than is true for too many parents in their care for their own children. If you do not or have not worked in a school as a counselor, social worker, or administrator, you are going to have to take my word on this. Charters take those who apply and this is more effort than some parents would make for their children. It tears my heart out most every day.
2) Charters serve very few special education students and they certainly do not serve the most impaired kids. These children are included in test scores. Many charters actively talk parents out of having their children attend their schools.
3) In Betsy DeVos's Michigan she has actively discouraged meaningful oversight of charter schools. Charters in Michigan do not score better than traditional schools. What DeVos had advocated for is unregulated schools. Many of these schools are simply means to transfer public dollars to the coffers of private charter companies. Giving DeVos ammo supporting charters is not going to cause her to become an advocate for equal regulation.
9
Dear Mr. Leonhardt,
My wife, yesterday, taught a class in a Charter School located in one of the poorer sections of Hartford the state's capital. She gave a class on '18th Century Living', in conjunction with a local museum, and spoke to 75 well dressed, very interested and bright students.
All of her attendees were black reflecting the neighborhood but, more importantly, reflecting, to me, the problem with 'community charter schools'; those in the suburbs will be mostly white and those in the inner city will be mostly Black/Hispanic.
How this helps the problem of 'de-facto segregation' doesn't appear to be addressed by yourself or any of the promoters of 'charter schools'.
As usual, the racial issue is ducked, the idea of 'racial balance' is tossed out the window and, it appears, we can now discriminate against even 'well educated' minorities, progress of a very dubious sort.
When we finally realize that education in the 50 states requires a massive investment of time, money and heartfelt care about how our kids are educated, whatever their ethnicity, we will remain very far from any standard set artificially and we certainly won't see the end of segregation and discrimination.
I do not expect Trump or Devos to even recognize the problem much less 'address' it.
My wife, yesterday, taught a class in a Charter School located in one of the poorer sections of Hartford the state's capital. She gave a class on '18th Century Living', in conjunction with a local museum, and spoke to 75 well dressed, very interested and bright students.
All of her attendees were black reflecting the neighborhood but, more importantly, reflecting, to me, the problem with 'community charter schools'; those in the suburbs will be mostly white and those in the inner city will be mostly Black/Hispanic.
How this helps the problem of 'de-facto segregation' doesn't appear to be addressed by yourself or any of the promoters of 'charter schools'.
As usual, the racial issue is ducked, the idea of 'racial balance' is tossed out the window and, it appears, we can now discriminate against even 'well educated' minorities, progress of a very dubious sort.
When we finally realize that education in the 50 states requires a massive investment of time, money and heartfelt care about how our kids are educated, whatever their ethnicity, we will remain very far from any standard set artificially and we certainly won't see the end of segregation and discrimination.
I do not expect Trump or Devos to even recognize the problem much less 'address' it.
5
Let's put aside for a moment that republicans want to ''voucherize '' ( privatize everything.
Aye, perhaps there might be more choice, but if you cannot afford the full cost, then you are going to fall further and further behind.
We cannot combat every problem with the ''free market'' Socialized profits and downloaded costs upon us ), nor with tax breaks as singular silver bullets. It takes an all of the above strategy.
Having said that, the greatest thing we can offer our kids in regards to education is time. That means one on one time with teachers and with parents.
For the teacher side, that requires more infrastructure spending in th public system as well as better pay for teachers.
For parents, that means raising the minimum wage\benifits so parents aren't working longer for less, while being exhausted doing it. ( having no time for kids )
Simple.
Aye, perhaps there might be more choice, but if you cannot afford the full cost, then you are going to fall further and further behind.
We cannot combat every problem with the ''free market'' Socialized profits and downloaded costs upon us ), nor with tax breaks as singular silver bullets. It takes an all of the above strategy.
Having said that, the greatest thing we can offer our kids in regards to education is time. That means one on one time with teachers and with parents.
For the teacher side, that requires more infrastructure spending in th public system as well as better pay for teachers.
For parents, that means raising the minimum wage\benifits so parents aren't working longer for less, while being exhausted doing it. ( having no time for kids )
Simple.
1
"like saying that all of Lebron James's coaches have been geniuses.". That is a really great line.
1
Leonhardt encourages us to look at charters with an open mind. I think it's important to have an open mind and to use evidence to make decisions. I am also a teacher. The reason the educational traditionalists have resisted charters as well as vouchers is that the rhetoric and sometimes the policies behind charters appear to be anti-teacher. Teachers working for Eva Moskowitz's charters in NYC, for example, have very high attrition rates, nearly three times the rate of average NYC public school teachers, according to their own data. If you believe education starts in the classroom, this is not a promising statistic.
4
Charters don't work, either. Almost all of them perform worse then the public schools, even though they can limit how many students they take in (unlike public schools).
Let's just focus on improving public schools in areas with a high concentration of our students, who face the greatest challenges.
Let's just focus on improving public schools in areas with a high concentration of our students, who face the greatest challenges.
3
Charter schools do skim off the top. The very poor financially are more often the ones who can't afford the time and inconvenience of their child not going to the nearest school. Often one neighbor will pick up many local children at 3:00--this can't be done if they are spread out in different schools, or if siblings attend different schools. Also, better parents search out better school opportunities. The children who often need the most attention get the least. Harvard is often derided by -"cream in, cream out." Works in the elementary schools also.
1
It seems to me that you may be comparing apples to oranges. Charters are schools, whereas vouchers are means to get to a school. Apples to apples would be comparing charters with public and private schools.
1
I'm indifferent to be honest. The best predictors of student outcomes are the family & IQ. Two things the schools can't control. I think reformers on both sides need to make peace with that and ratchet down expectations considerably.
3
I am sorry that you never had a teacher who made a difference in your life.
Does it work in reverse, that a child who gets no mental stimulation will do well because of family and I.Q.?
Does it work in reverse, that a child who gets no mental stimulation will do well because of family and I.Q.?
When the bar is so low -- journalists, billionaires and politicians are all experts on the school system -- who needs education?
Betsy DeVos certainly didn't. Bill Gates and his fellow billionaires have no credentials or experience in the matter. And David Leonhardt's source of expertise is unknown. The readership wouldn't expect him to opine on the practice of medicine or the organization of the space program. But education is apparently fair game.
It would seem we have a contradiction here.... Birth, status and money are more important than knowledge. What's the lesson there?
Betsy DeVos certainly didn't. Bill Gates and his fellow billionaires have no credentials or experience in the matter. And David Leonhardt's source of expertise is unknown. The readership wouldn't expect him to opine on the practice of medicine or the organization of the space program. But education is apparently fair game.
It would seem we have a contradiction here.... Birth, status and money are more important than knowledge. What's the lesson there?
1
Until charters are held to the same standards and requirements (such as free/reduced lunch, transportation, special services for disabled, testing, teacher pay, state and federal mandates), you are comparing apples to oranges. The "flexibility" you praise is not allowed in many traditional public schools, where our doors are open to all students and where all needs must be met, regardless of cost. The money that allows charters their vaunted flexibility is squeezed out of already strapped traditional public schools. My state is one where the underlying philosophy of the GOP is to starve traditional public schools for funds, call them failures for not rising to a bar set only for them, then take even more funding away to offer "choice." What people forget is that choice isn't the one parents make in which school their child will attend, the choice is made by the school of which student they will take.
271
That is not true at my charter school which operates in North Carolina. We take everyone (as is mandated by our charter agreement), including those with profound educational needs. 22% of our children qualify for FRL. We are extremely proud of our cultural, economic and educational diversity. Meanwhile, two new vocational high schools have opened in our traditional district that will only serve EC students who do not need in class resource, AU support, behavioral support or (ironically) an occupational course of study. As the article points out, the situation is not as black and white as either side would like it to be.
3
Right on!
1
Another major aid in improving our children's education is pre-school. Those who can afford it send their children to preschool for 3 years which gives them a great advantage. I know, I sent my children.
Preschool would be invaluable beyond measure for the children of the poor, especially the uneducated and the immigrant children who may not even know how to speak English when they start kindergarten.
In improving their chances of academic success, we are improving our future as a country. Perhaps one of those children might discover the cure for cancer. The founder of Starbucks grew up poor in the projects.
In limiting the success stories, we might be losing a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Thomas Edison or Einstein.
As a former teacher and an immigrant (whose parents did not speak English), I am proof of what great, caring teachers and a great education system (in the inner city) can do. I like to think that I made a difference in some of my students' lives.
We say we love our children but we need to show it to all our children. Our future success depends on it. It is cheaper to spend money on education than prisons.
Preschool would be invaluable beyond measure for the children of the poor, especially the uneducated and the immigrant children who may not even know how to speak English when they start kindergarten.
In improving their chances of academic success, we are improving our future as a country. Perhaps one of those children might discover the cure for cancer. The founder of Starbucks grew up poor in the projects.
In limiting the success stories, we might be losing a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Barack Obama, Thomas Edison or Einstein.
As a former teacher and an immigrant (whose parents did not speak English), I am proof of what great, caring teachers and a great education system (in the inner city) can do. I like to think that I made a difference in some of my students' lives.
We say we love our children but we need to show it to all our children. Our future success depends on it. It is cheaper to spend money on education than prisons.
1
I am a progressive with 29 years as a public school superintendent in 5 different states in the Northeast and here's what I know to be true: traditional public schools, governed by elected school boards in communities that can afford to provide generous funding for small class sizes, a wide array of programs, and teacher training do far better than any schools in America. Unfortunately for our country, these well financed districts are invariably located in our country's most affluent communities whose housing costs of housing preclude the enrollment of parents who earn poverty-level wages. If we are serious about making public education a "powerful force for accelerating economic growth, reducing poverty and lifting middle-class living standards" we should fund ALL districts at the same level as our most affluent ones. In 2015, Scarsdale spent $31,005/pupil. The State mean was $23,370. New Rochelle, within commuting distance of Scarsdale, spent $22,584. Scarsdale taxpayers, who chose to spend roughly $7,500 more than the State mean and roughly $8,500 than their neighbors to the south believe spending on public education matters... and I know New Rochelle could do a lot with the $28 million in additional funds they would have if their per pupil spending matched Scarsdale.
Choice advocates like Mr. Leonardt sidestep questions of inequitable funding and the housing patterns that underly these disparities in spending. As a progressive, I believe we need to face these issues.
Choice advocates like Mr. Leonardt sidestep questions of inequitable funding and the housing patterns that underly these disparities in spending. As a progressive, I believe we need to face these issues.
517
'inequitable funding and the housing patterns' - This is universal in affluent regions of the USA. The parents make the choice of buying an expensive house based on school district to ensure good school and competitive learning environment for their children through grade 12. They chose to pay higher taxes of which a good part goes into spending on schools. The 'choices' in public schools system are made by parents who also define the school districts, quite democratic. Though good school is not a ticket to best education which happens more at home with parent who invest in children and motivate them to perform well. Both good families and good schools complement each other for producing well educated children ready for challenging college education.
1
I agree that you can accomplish more with more money, however since when should some of the highest paying districts determine adequate funding levels? There are some great private schools that charge less than 20K. A lot of that extra money goes to things that might be considered luxuries by many parents. Parents may like small classes but they aren't necessary for every child. So the question is what is a fair enough amount? If Scarsdale parents decide to spend 45K per kid, does that mean that all the other districts have to try to match that? I do support public schools but I think where you lose parent support is when you say that 23K per student isn't enough. That, to many, seems a hard to believe.
3
And in Newark, NJ, the state spent $24,000 per student compared to $16,000 in Westfield. It also matters what the local governments do with the money. They need to be held accountable.
3
As a retired public school educator, I must say this piece does a good job of differentiating charters and vouchers. Here in Florida, both have been a part of our educational landscape for many years with mixed results. At the state level, charter schools, many of which are for profit ventures owned or controlled by state legislators or their family members, have been greatly expanded. One result of this expansion is a legislature which takes capital outlay monies away from traditional schools and shifts it into charters. Less necessary repairs are made and it is harder to built new traditional public schools. At the same time, when charter schools are given much freedom in regards to curriculum design and innovation, traditional schools are run in a top down manner with teachers being given less and less opportunity to design curriculum or innovate within their own classrooms. By the time I retired I no longer felt like a professional expert in my field. I was simply handed a boatload of curriculum and told to "stick to the pacing calendar".
Although there are good charter schools which have shown success, Leonhardt is correct in his assessment of vouchers. We have fought for years in opposing state money being given to often unproven or church run schools. Secretary DeVos sees no problem with this blurring of lines between church and state and that is one issue that should concern us all.
Although there are good charter schools which have shown success, Leonhardt is correct in his assessment of vouchers. We have fought for years in opposing state money being given to often unproven or church run schools. Secretary DeVos sees no problem with this blurring of lines between church and state and that is one issue that should concern us all.
185
" At the state level, charter schools, many of which are for profit ventures owned or controlled by state legislators or their family members, have been greatly expanded."
If this is true this is an enormous conflict of interest. Apparently, the Republicans who control your state, as they do mine (look up: SC politicians, ethics violations), as they do the White House, are using their office as a tool to line their own pockets. If the Republican party isn't careful, it runs the risk of being regarded as the party of corruption.
If this is true this is an enormous conflict of interest. Apparently, the Republicans who control your state, as they do mine (look up: SC politicians, ethics violations), as they do the White House, are using their office as a tool to line their own pockets. If the Republican party isn't careful, it runs the risk of being regarded as the party of corruption.
1
While Mr. Leonhardt properly focuses on the utilitarian issue of which schools offer the best education, other effects of reform deserve attention. The genius behind the idea of state-supported schools centers on the goal of educating the entire population. We now take this objective for granted, but in fact systematic efforts to achieve it date back only to the 19th century. The Founders knew a free society required an educated population, and thus the US helped to pioneer the development of a system that would spread literacy to all children.
Charters do not challenge this vision, because the schools still belong to the public system. Vouchers, on the other hand, shift tax dollars to private schools, which can usually cherry-pick their students and operate under much less stringent public regulation.
Many advocates of vouchers seek to rescue children from failing or dangerous public schools, in situations where only private institutions offer a better environment. The organized political and religious force behind the voucher movement, however, arises from ideological hostility to the secular orientation of public schools. Since vouchers, moreover, generally offer too little money to enable families to pay tuition at excellent private institutions, working-class students often have to enroll their children in inferior schools.
Vouchers undermine the public system, without helping disadvantaged students.
Charters do not challenge this vision, because the schools still belong to the public system. Vouchers, on the other hand, shift tax dollars to private schools, which can usually cherry-pick their students and operate under much less stringent public regulation.
Many advocates of vouchers seek to rescue children from failing or dangerous public schools, in situations where only private institutions offer a better environment. The organized political and religious force behind the voucher movement, however, arises from ideological hostility to the secular orientation of public schools. Since vouchers, moreover, generally offer too little money to enable families to pay tuition at excellent private institutions, working-class students often have to enroll their children in inferior schools.
Vouchers undermine the public system, without helping disadvantaged students.
139
Yes, and thank you for that last line: that seems to distill the issue as complex as it is.
1
Charter schools are far better resourced than public ones. They also don't take special needs children. Don't kid yourself that it doesn't make a difference.
1
Your argument is fallacious. A straw man at best, and a rather weak one at that.
A truly public system of education embraces all of the systems that educate children...including parochial and private schools.
A truly public system of education embraces all of the systems that educate children...including parochial and private schools.
1
Is the goal of a school to experiment with means to better educate the students they have, focusing on the specific problems they have? Or is it to make a profit by competing for public funds?
Most of the objection to charters comes from the argument that they both skim off more academic students and can expel discipline problems - both of which improve the outcome for the kids in the school. If the converse were true, that the public schools improved too, all would be fine.
Until charters find a way to demonstrate that they are more than triage -that they help a net gain for all students, you have the conundrum that we have chosen to help some at the expense of others.
But vouchers? The people lobbying for vouchers are religious schools - my kids got a fine education at a Catholic grammar school - and for profit schools. Publicly finding religious schools is at best problematic. Thought experiment - how much are you willing to give to the Satanists for a grammar school? And for profit enterprises? Well, for profit colleges have a poor reputation. How much are we willing to risk in privatizing our kids' schooling? Will they cut resources quarterly to demonstrate better results? Or will they be driven, unlike in any other current American business, by the long term goals?
Betsy DeVos comes from Amway money, and her brother is Blackwater. Both print cash, but neither is the epitome of a model for education.
Most of the objection to charters comes from the argument that they both skim off more academic students and can expel discipline problems - both of which improve the outcome for the kids in the school. If the converse were true, that the public schools improved too, all would be fine.
Until charters find a way to demonstrate that they are more than triage -that they help a net gain for all students, you have the conundrum that we have chosen to help some at the expense of others.
But vouchers? The people lobbying for vouchers are religious schools - my kids got a fine education at a Catholic grammar school - and for profit schools. Publicly finding religious schools is at best problematic. Thought experiment - how much are you willing to give to the Satanists for a grammar school? And for profit enterprises? Well, for profit colleges have a poor reputation. How much are we willing to risk in privatizing our kids' schooling? Will they cut resources quarterly to demonstrate better results? Or will they be driven, unlike in any other current American business, by the long term goals?
Betsy DeVos comes from Amway money, and her brother is Blackwater. Both print cash, but neither is the epitome of a model for education.
198
Makes one wonder how DeVos given her background and family history ever got pass the vetting committee. Must have been her grisly bear statement that was impressive. Also makes you wonder how many people in congress have authoritative tendencies akin to Trump's. Incidentally, how's that intelligence investigation going. Has that been put on the back burner never to be heard from again until we hear the kettle whistling.
The goal of a school should be neither. Experiments can fail. Of course to liberals a failed experiment just results in collateral damage and onward to the next grand experiment.
2
You can't lump all charter schools together. My son goes to a charter school in a low income area and that 70% are eligble for Reduced for free lunch. But the kids score in 80 and 90% on the standardized tests. Whereas some charter schools are pulling in already top achievers.
1
Mt. Leonhardt is correct, but fails in one major dynamic. Betsy DeVos is not coming to the job with an open mind because she and the DeVos family are deeply involved as suppliers and purveyors of goods and services to private and charter schools, and so they would benefit by their proliferation. Just like so many of the appointees in the Trump administration, she has come to dine at the table of government and takes positions that benefit her, and not necessarily the American people.
311
She also has a religious agenda in mind. She wants children to go to Christian schools and make the taxpayer pay for it.
The Constitution means nothing to her evangelical soul.
The Constitution means nothing to her evangelical soul.
Ad homenem attacks do little to further discussions, Mr. Mazer, particularly when the system that you and the rest of you on the left have allowed our schools systems essentially to cease teaching our children.
Many trillions of dollars on the local, state, and federal levels have been spent to maintain schooling that is unable to graduate students capable of the minimum necessary to be proficient at reading, writing, and arithmetic.
What possible reason could there be continuing to throw money at a system that has been such an abject failure?
Many trillions of dollars on the local, state, and federal levels have been spent to maintain schooling that is unable to graduate students capable of the minimum necessary to be proficient at reading, writing, and arithmetic.
What possible reason could there be continuing to throw money at a system that has been such an abject failure?
1
The real issue is why there is a need for charters and vouchers in the first place. Many public school systems across the country are successful, turn out competent graduates and there is no call for charters or vouchers. In most of those successful locations, the original partnership of teachers, parents, school boards, unions and the public still works and works well. Yes, the public school system has failed in some locations but I would argue for reforming the public schools so that every child, no matter where they live, have access to an equal quality education should be the goal.
209
Sure - they are doing a stellar job - from the most recent PEW analysis:
"The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science."
"The most recent PISA results, from 2015, placed the U.S. an unimpressive 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science."
1
Would love to see schools funded by a method other than local property taxes.
1
" Yes, the public school system has failed in some locations"
Please name ONE urban public school system that you'd name a success -- where you'd send your children?
Please name ONE urban public school system that you'd name a success -- where you'd send your children?
3
I'd like to see the author further explain how his conclusion that the success of charters "doesn't stem from skimming off the best" gibes with the charter experience in New York City. There has been a great deal of journalism discussing how these schools arrange their lotteries or other admissions procedures so that only students with more involved, available parents are realistically going to apply, and then "counsel out" more difficult students once they are enrolled. While there are exceptions, the student populations are generally far from "all comers".
147
I think those problems were in the for profit schools. I also think some of the issues you discuss happened in Florida. In NYS, the Board of Regents must certify the opening of a charter school. In my area of NYS, charter schools that do not live up to their promise have been closed by the Board of Regents.
1
Good comment. You might want to look up "gibe" -- to deride with taunting words, and "jibe" -- to be in accord with.
1
There is nothing wrong expecting parents to be involved in their children's schooling. All public schools should expect that, too. Why aren't they? Is it because higher expectation of parental involvement would raise the bar for teacher performance?
1
I have no issue with charters, if some of they are readily accessible to children in poor, violent, and underserved neighborhoods. My concern is for the kids who live in home situations where parents are to busy, distracted, addicted etc., to make decisions other than simply sending the child to the nearest school. My concern is also the lower functioning child who may be left in the traditional public school. In the latter case, other children leaving surely further diminishes the experience for those who are left.
The other need is for true oversight of charters and the courage to close underperforming ones as needed.
The other need is for true oversight of charters and the courage to close underperforming ones as needed.
55
Betsy DeVos may or may not be open to new facts, but we know she's open to old fables:
In a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing Christian faith through philanthropy, Betsy DeVos and her husband Dick DeVos (Amway CEO from 1993 - 2002 AND the son of Amway founder Richard DeVos) were asked whether Christian schools should continue to rely on giving (charity) rather than pushing for taxpayer money through vouchers.
Betsy DeVos replied: "There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education...Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom."
Husband Dick DeVos added: "As we look at many communities in our country, the church has been displaced by the public school as the center for activity...it is certainly our hope that more and more churches will get more and more active and engaged in education."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/betsy-devos-christian-school...
Collapsing the the crumbling wall of separation of church and state is no way to run an education system.....that's where America should be building its wall.
Devolution vs. evolution ?
Which direction would a theocracy take ?
Which direction would a democracy take ?
"Advancing God's kingdom" with biblical fairy tales is no way to prepare a young mind for the 21st and 22nd centuries, unless you're looking to shepherd in the religious-based 'end times'.
In a 2001 interview for The Gathering, a group focused on advancing Christian faith through philanthropy, Betsy DeVos and her husband Dick DeVos (Amway CEO from 1993 - 2002 AND the son of Amway founder Richard DeVos) were asked whether Christian schools should continue to rely on giving (charity) rather than pushing for taxpayer money through vouchers.
Betsy DeVos replied: "There are not enough philanthropic dollars in America to fund what is currently the need in education...Our desire is to confront the culture in ways that will continue to advance God's kingdom."
Husband Dick DeVos added: "As we look at many communities in our country, the church has been displaced by the public school as the center for activity...it is certainly our hope that more and more churches will get more and more active and engaged in education."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/betsy-devos-christian-school...
Collapsing the the crumbling wall of separation of church and state is no way to run an education system.....that's where America should be building its wall.
Devolution vs. evolution ?
Which direction would a theocracy take ?
Which direction would a democracy take ?
"Advancing God's kingdom" with biblical fairy tales is no way to prepare a young mind for the 21st and 22nd centuries, unless you're looking to shepherd in the religious-based 'end times'.
363
This is my red line. I do not want my tax dollars going to a religious institution, period. The article erroneously suggests that it is parent's tax dollars following their child to private or charter schools, I assure you, it isn't. The taxpayer, not the parent should decide which school receives their money, and the only way to achieve that , would be to abolish the Federal Department of Education and send that responsibility back to the individual states. Such action will of course divide our nation even further as states with a religious majority violate the rights of the non religious minority.
8
Ms Devos
Are you willing to assign god the job of holding the community together? Or even make a contribution to the task?
Are you willing to assign god the job of holding the community together? Or even make a contribution to the task?
5
Very well said. You should get the Stephens job.
4
From my reading on the issue, users of vouchers overwhelmingly employ them for charters, particularly in economically disadvantaged communities that don’t have a lot of choice BUT new schools. After all, if you look at any county’s allocation of education dollars, you typically see the minimum number of public schools operating that accommodates the number of children needing education. If vouchers merely were used to shift public funding from less-effective to more-effective public schools, which tend to lie outside those disadvantaged venues, what you’d see is neighborhoods emptying out seeking better education for their children in communities the residents had no part in building; or the mass-busing of children living in blighted communities to the suburbs. That’s not happening, in part because even with a shift of public resources those economically more stable communities don’t have the resources to vastly expand existing schools or build new ones. Yet charters often are privately-launched and use the voucher money for on-going operations.
Instead, what we see are charters started IN those disadvantaged communities, and public funding moving to them from vouchers.
Without for the moment getting into whether charters are or are not effective, it remains that you really CAN’T separate vouchers from charters. To claim that the latter are successful while the former fails is to ignore the close link between them. Vouchers and charters go hand-in-hand.
Instead, what we see are charters started IN those disadvantaged communities, and public funding moving to them from vouchers.
Without for the moment getting into whether charters are or are not effective, it remains that you really CAN’T separate vouchers from charters. To claim that the latter are successful while the former fails is to ignore the close link between them. Vouchers and charters go hand-in-hand.
7
My own view is that charters are useful ways of overcoming the poor quality of schools in our most economically devastated communities – and parents in those communities overwhelmingly agree. They also offer models of experimentation that a community can use to transform failed public institutions into more effective ones.
But charters can’t broadly scale. First, it’s not necessary that they do – our schools are effective in many communities. Second, to scale everywhere charters would need to leech talent leaving shells of the least capable publics and no foundation on which to transform them into more effective institutions. In fact, they would render obsolete publicly-directed education, effectively replacing our system of universal, publicly-funded education with a less public system that by its growing size and complexity would inherit the problems that have rendered some publics ineffective and even failed.
If we strongly supported charters in our poorest neighborhoods, we could mitigate the tactical problem of better educating children not receiving an effective education, but we’d do little to fix our public education model, that fails dismally at overcoming the social and economic disadvantages to LIVING in those neighborhoods, helping kids once grown to improve them or to develop the individual capital needed to move out and break the cycle of perpetual poverty for THEM.
Strategically, we need a new model of public education for our ghettos.
But charters can’t broadly scale. First, it’s not necessary that they do – our schools are effective in many communities. Second, to scale everywhere charters would need to leech talent leaving shells of the least capable publics and no foundation on which to transform them into more effective institutions. In fact, they would render obsolete publicly-directed education, effectively replacing our system of universal, publicly-funded education with a less public system that by its growing size and complexity would inherit the problems that have rendered some publics ineffective and even failed.
If we strongly supported charters in our poorest neighborhoods, we could mitigate the tactical problem of better educating children not receiving an effective education, but we’d do little to fix our public education model, that fails dismally at overcoming the social and economic disadvantages to LIVING in those neighborhoods, helping kids once grown to improve them or to develop the individual capital needed to move out and break the cycle of perpetual poverty for THEM.
Strategically, we need a new model of public education for our ghettos.
8
Vouchers are not used for charters as charters ARE public schools. You may be confusing their use for opened for-profit schools or other non-government educational entity.
41
Where in your reading did you learn that vouchers are used overwhelmingly for charter schools? Charter schools are free public schools, so you don't need vouchers to attend them.
32
This is an extremely well-reasoned review of the charters versus vouchers versus public schools debate. The key question, in my mind, is how to make public schools perform as well as the public charter schools.
In the District of Columbia, by the way, some 40% of schoolchildren attend public charter schools. The public charter schools are funded with capitation fees-- funds paid by the local government to pay the costs of each child served by the charter. Many charter schools also raise private donations.
In the District of Columbia, by the way, some 40% of schoolchildren attend public charter schools. The public charter schools are funded with capitation fees-- funds paid by the local government to pay the costs of each child served by the charter. Many charter schools also raise private donations.
23
Anetliner,
"Many charter schools also raise private donations."
Doesn't that answer your "key question"?
It isn't just the money. It is well established that the focus and energy applied by all the participants in a new enterprise can lead to positive outcomes, but often that outcome is not maintained or replicable.
I don't consider the piece "well reasoned" at all. Let's see some data in detail, rather than this handwavy, over-generalized, rhetoric. Let's see a list of all the schools in the area, with their institutional outcomes. If it's taxpayer money involved, that should be public information.
Anyone have a reference?
"Many charter schools also raise private donations."
Doesn't that answer your "key question"?
It isn't just the money. It is well established that the focus and energy applied by all the participants in a new enterprise can lead to positive outcomes, but often that outcome is not maintained or replicable.
I don't consider the piece "well reasoned" at all. Let's see some data in detail, rather than this handwavy, over-generalized, rhetoric. Let's see a list of all the schools in the area, with their institutional outcomes. If it's taxpayer money involved, that should be public information.
Anyone have a reference?
47
If the local government pays those capitation fees, don't those fees come from the local folks' taxes? On top of the taxes they pay to support the public school system? I know I stink at math, but this seems to me somewhat unfair.
1
How to make public schools perform as well as charters? Easy! Give public schools the right to pick students from a lottery into which their highly invested parents enter, allow public schools to make serving students with special needs optional and them to expel (or counsel out) students who demonstrate bad behavior, poor progress, and/or low levels of attendance and punctuality.
A teacher in my South Bronx school who switched from a charter school and thought he knew what he was getting into, since he already taught the same population. He hadn't a clue as to how select their population had been.
A teacher in my South Bronx school who switched from a charter school and thought he knew what he was getting into, since he already taught the same population. He hadn't a clue as to how select their population had been.
16
Well-educated adults may earn much more, live longer, and be much happier than poorly educated adults. But this does not mean that if all adults were well-educated, they would all do better. Some of them would merely be overqualified for the jobs they have found. This is why education cannot be the only answer to our problems. Education may offer a way for some to escape a very nasty bottom of society, but as long as the bottom is very nasty some people will be living in a nasty environment.
On the one hand, education is important, but on the other it is not the crucial issue. The ugly bottom is a punishment for losers, and will inspire them to do well enough, better enough than their peers, to escape it. The crucial issue is whether we want to be a society with an ugly bottom or not. Right now it looks like we do, and the only solution to its existence is the individual one of escaping it.
On the one hand, education is important, but on the other it is not the crucial issue. The ugly bottom is a punishment for losers, and will inspire them to do well enough, better enough than their peers, to escape it. The crucial issue is whether we want to be a society with an ugly bottom or not. Right now it looks like we do, and the only solution to its existence is the individual one of escaping it.
93
I believe you have very neatly summed up what conservatives strongly believe, that we need a nasty bottom to motivate people. It's basically back to the concept of original sin, that people are, by nature, fairly nasty, not to mention lazy.
Conservatives would be quick to label a more benign view of people as hippy-dippy nonsense. Even folks who aren't especially right-wing are inclined to believe some version of this. Could they be wrong?
I was watching Bill Maher one time & he said that humans are a uniquely competitive species. I started shouting at the TV but I guess he couldn't hear me. I'm not, obviously, denying that humans are competitive but, in fact, all animals are competitive, both with members of the same species & others.
What sets humans apart is how co-operative we can be with each other. I read about a psychology experiment involving infants. The experimenter was entertaining them with some silly stuff & he misplaced one of his props. The set-up was that he couldn't see where it was but the infants could. They started trying to show him where it was.
They hadn't been taught to be helpful to others, it came naturally. We have another built-in trait, the urge to separate others into Us & Them. So in war you have two groups of humans very much co-operating with Us while trying to kill Them. We need to teach that we are all Us.
Conservatives would be quick to label a more benign view of people as hippy-dippy nonsense. Even folks who aren't especially right-wing are inclined to believe some version of this. Could they be wrong?
I was watching Bill Maher one time & he said that humans are a uniquely competitive species. I started shouting at the TV but I guess he couldn't hear me. I'm not, obviously, denying that humans are competitive but, in fact, all animals are competitive, both with members of the same species & others.
What sets humans apart is how co-operative we can be with each other. I read about a psychology experiment involving infants. The experimenter was entertaining them with some silly stuff & he misplaced one of his props. The set-up was that he couldn't see where it was but the infants could. They started trying to show him where it was.
They hadn't been taught to be helpful to others, it came naturally. We have another built-in trait, the urge to separate others into Us & Them. So in war you have two groups of humans very much co-operating with Us while trying to kill Them. We need to teach that we are all Us.
3
Look at the election of 2016. Now tell me again that education is not the crucial issue.
I'll wait.
I'll wait.
6
Jack, As I'm sure you know, Darwin wrote a book on evolution and survival of the fittest called the Origin of the Species. Ironically, apparently conservatives are not on board with this theory of evolution. In some red states, schools are banned from teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution. Personally, I question whether mankind is any more civilized today than biblical times. We are all equal in the eye's of God, except those that aren't - such is the hypocrisy of organized religion and its adherents.
The De Vos era, offers choices
Set up by these Donald Trump voices,
One cannot deny
Bucks and Bigots apply
The values going with Rolls Royces.
Vouchers figure in everywhere,
And Ryan has plenty to spare,
Since voucher decriers
Are Don Trump deniers
Our chances of winning are rare.
Set up by these Donald Trump voices,
One cannot deny
Bucks and Bigots apply
The values going with Rolls Royces.
Vouchers figure in everywhere,
And Ryan has plenty to spare,
Since voucher decriers
Are Don Trump deniers
Our chances of winning are rare.
109
Charter schools can be run by public school districts or by for-profit corporations. I would like to see a careful analysis that compares the results of the in-house charters vs the corporate for-profit charters. Given that each receive the same PPA (per pupil allotment) it would surprise me if the corporate run charters could successfully run high quality programs while holding back funds for their bottom-line profits.
5
I love you Larry!
2
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/22/24490927/john-oliver-shows-ho...
To be succinct, charters cherry pick kids on the front and back end, they are funded with public money but lack public oversight, there is an endless list of for-profit companies that have used charters to misuse public money, they compete for scarce funding for public K-12 schools, and they can't be scaled up to serve the large population of kids who seek public education. The few successful charter stories can't offset the many failures.