Yes, if this were a prize fight the ref would have stopped it on a technical knockout by now. The research keeps pouring in demonstrating that Massachusetts public charter schools are doing a better job educating Boston’s kids, all of them, including the neediest.
Again this week we have more research from the nation’s leading universities that shatters charter opponents’ claims that charters only perform better because they teach only high performing students.
This latest fact-base, confirming a growing pile of earlier research on the subject, comes straight for the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and details recent analysis performed by one of their PhD candidates, Elizabeth Setren. She has been studying ELL and SPED student performance in Boston’s charters vs Boston’s traditional public schools (the analysis is limited to students that applied to charters, so sorry union faithful, no “involved parent” selection bias at work here either). You can read the full article here.
For those of you short on time, I’ll cut straight to the chase. Here’s what she found:
Setren compared the achievement of special needs lottery applicants in charters and in traditional public schools, and was surprised to discover that across the board, regardless of their level of need, these students are much more successful in charter schools. In fact, for English-language learners, a year in a charter school essentially allowed them to catch up to native English speakers in traditional public schools, erasing much of the achievement gap that typically exists.
Charters closed the ELL language gap in a year — one year! That is astounding and is as compelling a reason as any to lift that furshlugginer cap on public charter schools.
NatMorton School Choice Blog 
Yes, but it really is more evidence to eliminate the open lottery aspect (for now) of charters and restrict expansion to those subgroups or heavily weight the lottery in favor of those subgroups. It’s interesting when you propose something like that out in the more suburban areas the horrified reaction from charter parents.
Until we move to universal school choice, this should be more the path; the concerns of traditional school districts outside urban centers is charter expansion = pseudo private school. When you see charters that are 90% white and well below community averages for need/income groups and then note evidence such as emerging in Ms. Setren’s research, you get an understanding why, besides the typical democrat union mindset, even open minded people worry about charter expansion.
LikeLike
Sorry, Lance. You’re not seeing the big picture here an you’re also basing your argument on some incorrect data.
First, “universal choice” is an euphemism for orchestrated enrollment. You’re asserting that we must now allow parents to choose freely — as they can today within the artificially limited charter capacity — and begin denying access to charters based on race (yes, that is the direct consequence of what you propose; if your child belongs to the over-represented race they would be denied access to the school of their choice because of the color of their skin). Sorry, that’s not choice. It’s just another form of centrally controlled assignment.
I have no idea where you get the “90% white” number. It’s entirely wrong. Boston charters, for example, have a significantly higher % of African American students than does the BPS. Boston’s charters also have fewer white students and fewer Asian students than the BPS, ethnic groups that typically perform well relative to others (you can find the detailed #’s with cites here: https://natmortonblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/how-boston-latin-helps-prove-that-charters-dont-cherry-pick-their-students/ ). In your quest for demographic equilibrium would you therefore propose we start booting black kids out of the city’s charters and begin reserving those seats for white and Asian kids?
The pseudo-private label is entirely unjustified. MA charters are public schools, by law and by practice. They only students they do not accept are losers of the random lottery — and the only reason any of them lose is the cap. We should allow supply to meet demand.
Lastly, you seem to be implying that the MIT research is invalid because of the demographic differences between charters and trads. It’s not, because the research I cite eliminates those differences. The comparison is truly apples-to-apples, and there is a very clear performance difference in favor of charters. It’s a pattern we’ve seen in study after study.
LikeLike
First, I in now way said anything about the validity of the MIT research. It seems from a quick read to be very interesting. You may want to read my response a bit closer.
Second, I never stated anything on the Boston charter schools – note I used suburban charters and perhaps I should have made it clear my points are greater than Boston or even Massachusetts. Note I said suburban charters that are 90% white – not Boston charters. I’m quite sure Boston charters are diversified.
Third, the problem people on both sides of this debate make are to say “charters” are the same. They are not; just like traditional schools are not the same. Funding formulas vary by state. Charter proponents say charters = good; charter opponents say charters = bad.
Finally, please note the difference I make. One point with limited resources is to say “let the chips fall where they may based on how each school markets, runs its lottery, etc.” The other point – which you may disagree – is to say these choice schools, maybe charters, maybe privates, seem to serve best these type of students. Thus, that subgroup of students should have preferential admission.
For example, where I am from, the state law basically says, but does not make hard and fast, that the intent of charters was first to serve “underrepresented” and “most disadvantaged’ students. So..how do we interpret those words?
Disadvantage – lowest test scores? lowest graduation rates? Almost universally acknowledged data that shows lower income and then minority (which again is relative to how big the area you use as white are an overall majority but some communities are majority other race). Of course, minority is also correlated with income, which is also correlated with educational levels. Right – so yes, if you pick a non-race criteria, you lose control on racial numbers (or would favor the races correlated with the selected variable). If you pick race, you lose control over variables like income.
So, do I have a problem with a charter that is 96% white and less than 10% low-income – I do because the schools those kids would have gone to do as well or better on objective measures. That was the point I was making.
On the other hand, I also realize that even in the “best” schools, the fit for a single child may not work and what is a middle/lower class income family to do in that case?
But..right, the central problem – we don’t have the resources to fund redundant schools as a general organizing model for public education. Hence my point that charters should be displacing entire schools, not merely creating under capacity. The cap should be lifted in a manner that also closes other public schools.
Back to the research – from society’s perspective, if charters are doing a better job with certain groups, that’s their “comparative advantage’ so the society should either adopt the “production method” used (good luck with that in democratic states where many officials are union bought) or society should encourage specialization in that area.
Yep, that restricts the upper middle class families (of any race) Funny we don’t have the same conversations with other public services. Why can’t we have regional fire companies that serve just a select smattering of houses from different towns?
LikeLike
You’re covering many points in your replies, which is fine, but I’ll comment on those that strike me. If I skip one you’d rather I did not, please let me know.
I think the clause in the law that targets disadvantaged communities is satisfied by ensuring charters are given every opportunity to open those communities. That may mean they get priority in the approval queue. It may mean such charters are eligible for start-up grants from the state, whatever. You need not micromanage the charter admission process itself. Bottom line: build good schools, and allow parents to choose the school they believe is the best fit for their child. If that doesn’t create a perfect demographic distribution, so be it. It’s student outcomes that should matter most, not the process.
LikeLike