« Exercise! | Main | Bolton and Carrot Soup »
November 08, 2007
When Charter Schools Attack
The Times has a frontpager on Ohio's charter schools, of which more than half received a "D" or "F on the state's most recent set of metrics. "Fifty-seven percent of its charter schools, most of which are in cities, are in academic watch or emergency," reports The Times, "compared with 43 percent of traditional public schools in Ohio’s big cities." And what's gone wrong? "Behind the Ohio charter failures are systemic weaknesses that include loopholes in oversight, a law allowing 70 government and private agencies to authorize new charters, and financial incentives that encourage sponsors to let schools stay open."
On the bright side, in this case, these schools are accountable to the public, and so we have data on their failures and can actually do something about their decline. So this would seem to be a positive outcome: Various new schooling experiments are being tried, many are failing, and were going to close down the catastrophes. What's strange, though, is that I keep hearing that a total absence of public oversight mixed with financial incentives for schools to stay open -- and continue making money -- will fix education totally. Yet those two things appear to behind the failures here. Sometimes this world is so topsy-turvy sometimes that I just don't know what to think.
November 8, 2007 in Education | Permalink
Comments
Yes, because instead private schools are accountable not to "the public," but to actual parents. The schools won't be able to stay open when most of the children have left to go to better schools. They'll either have changed before that happens, or closed. Like with restaurants, bookshops, car manufacturers.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin | Nov 8, 2007 12:36:47 PM
Is "academic watch or emergency" an input or an output measure?
Posted by: SamChevre | Nov 8, 2007 12:38:08 PM
Tangential, but there's a Laura Rosen - Megan McArdle voucher debate over at PJMedia. McVoucherProponent exclaims The problem isn’t the teacher’s unions, or the school boards, or the district offices, or the principals, or the ideology about curriculum … or rather, the problem is that all of these things are problems, locked in a poisonous relationship with each other."
- not saying that there aren't genuine issues with any of these entities, alone or together, but notice that a certain set of factors - a very important set - isn't mentioned in this litany?
Posted by: Dan S. | Nov 8, 2007 12:38:42 PM
I think we need family vouchers, to let the MagicMarketPixieDust of choice and competition provide us all with better partners/children/in-laws/etc. All hail the market!
Posted by: Dan S. | Nov 8, 2007 12:41:05 PM
Dan S, that's just crazy - people are always happier when their spouse is assigned by the government.
Posted by: Marcin Tustin | Nov 8, 2007 1:14:16 PM
I am not an advocate of charter schools or of vouchers but...
Could some of the "failure" be due to the fact that the charter schools teach different things than the standard schools teach?
I believe that our schools could improve on what they teach. I believe that more practical information might help people live better. An example: May be a little more probability to help people avoid state lotteries in place of quadratic equations that almost no one ever uses outside of a school.
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 8, 2007 1:19:20 PM
Yes, because instead private schools are accountable not to "the public," but to actual parents.
Out here in the real world, public schools have PTA/O organizations that are comprised of actual parents. And actual parents volunteer in the classrooms and have conferences with the teachers. Actual parents can call up the principle or people in the district administration.
Plus, there is a school board that is elected by the public, including actual parents. And you don't necessarily have to be a rich asshole to get on these school boards, because you're not being appointed as a reward for building a swimming pool or whatever. Oh, and public schools are required to tell me exactly how they spend the money I give them, down to the penny, which private schools are not.
Finally, if you were an "actual parent" - or if you have kids, a "good parent" - you would realize that having your children change schools as often as you do a restaurant or even the make of your car is a pretty shitty thing to do to them. Real parents, good parents understand that the best thing for their children is to make the best decision they are able prior to enrolling them and then to remain involved throughout their education, seeking to change what needs to be changed instead of merely moving on because that's what the Magic Market Theory suggests.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 8, 2007 1:27:22 PM
Marcin Tustin you are correct marriage is a big decision and can have huge long lasting negative effects. Further freedom does not seem to be working so well as passions cloud judgments. People who make a bad choice end up in the hands of the state with the cops at the home sometimes with one spouse dead sometimes with one in the emergency room. So we should have much more regulation of marriage and co-habituation. No one should be subject to a bad marriage. A bad marriage can be far worse than lacking health insurance. The poor are often the victims of the bad marriage.
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 8, 2007 1:35:25 PM
Those "private schools" that are really good in my area are charging $20-25,000 per year tuition. They are great, absolutely great. I recommend them to everyone. But they benefit not so much from parental "accountability" (the one to which my kids went for a few years when prices were lower absolutely shunned the oversight or suggestions of parents). Rather they benefit from astonishingly good resources and the power to kick out any kid who doesn't perform or who causes trouble. That's really all it takes to have a great school -- money and selectivity. Now the public schools, cash strapped and required to have "special education" etc., that's another matter.
Posted by: David in NY | Nov 8, 2007 1:38:42 PM
Stephen, these school boards in cities are not viewed as representatives of parents' interests but rather as political stepping stones by politicians hoping for higher office.
Posted by: Tyro | Nov 8, 2007 1:40:10 PM
What's strange, though, is that I keep hearing that a total absence of public oversight mixed with financial incentives for schools to stay open -- and continue making money -- will fix education totally.
You keep hearing these two elements will fix education. Really? From whom?
I've argued in this forum and others that a systemic departure from the dominant model in American K-12 in favor of something more closely resembling the way we structure post-secondary education would improve the product. But I've never argued -- and I don't know anybody else who has -- that oversight of any system using taxpayer money wouldn't be essential, required, and politically impossible to do without. I think it is arguable, perhaps, that in a completely voucherized system, government oversight might not be quite as vital as in a non-choice model, for the simple reason that "bad schools" can't as easily hold their customers captive. Still, nobody's really saying it's possible or even desirable to spend public funds -- nor matter what the method -- without oversight and regulation. A voucher system does not mean "lack of regulation" or "lack of oversight." It simply means that many of the schools subject to such oversight won't be owned and operated by the government.
As for the bit about "financial incentives for schools to stay open" all I can say is: "huh?" Those advocating for school choice usually maintain that one of its most important virtues (if indeed the program is so structured) is that it allows school to not "stay open." That is, it ideally allows them to go kaput if they lose their customers.
Posted by: Jasper | Nov 8, 2007 1:46:41 PM
these school boards in cities are not viewed as representatives of parents' interests but rather as political stepping stones by politicians hoping for higher office.
Yet they're still way more accountable to parents than the unelected boards of directors of private schools who are chosen because of chumminess with the head of the school and/or the financial resources they bring with them. Tustin might hop his kids around from school to school, but most people won't, and those who run private schools know this as well as anyone. So yes, there's some broad, long-term market forces that can be brought to bear upon a bad school, but many of them are founded and operate upon a strict ideology with loyal adherents that tends to override any concerns they might have about performance.
Posted by: Stephen | Nov 8, 2007 1:47:49 PM
"Is "academic watch or emergency" an input or an output measure?"
From the Ohio Dept. of Ed. website:
The 2005-06 Local Report Card ratings for schools and districts are based on multiple measures, all of which use the results from the statewide assessments, graduation, and attendance as the inputs.
The three measures are:
1. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The final goal is for all students to reach the proficient level in reading and mathematics by 2013-14. Until then, yearly goals are set requiring a specific percentage of students in 10 student groups, such as African American, Hispanic, and White students, to reach proficiency in these subjects. For the school to meet AYP, goals for each student group must be met. If any goal is missed, the school does not meet AYP for the year.
2. State Indicators: A school meets a state indicator by reaching a minimum requirement for the percentage of students at or above the proficient level on 3rd, 4th-, 5th-, 6th-, 7th-, 8th and Ohio Graduation Tests. The two non-test indicators with minimum requirements are graduation and attendance rate.
3. Performance Index Score: For each tested subject in grades 3,4,5,6, 7, 8 and 10, students score at one of five performance levels – Limited, Basic, Proficient, Accelerated and Advanced. The performance index averages the scores for the five subject areas tested in your school and creates a scale of 0-120 with 100 being the goal. The performance index score represents the achievement of all students on all five subject areas of the proficiency tests.
Posted by: jmack | Nov 8, 2007 2:16:11 PM
Voucher schools probably wouldn't resemble even the charter schools all that much, let alone traditional private schools. Most likely the market would be dominated by the same players that bombard daytime TV shows like Maury Povich and Texas Justice with ads for overpriced proprietary trade schools. There would be one "DeVry Elementary" in every neighborhood, but no competition except the existing public school. The visionary, outside-the-box schoolmaster of pro-voucher mythology would have no chance against DeVry's (or ITT's or Sylvan's) marketing budget or economies of scale.
Posted by: kth | Nov 8, 2007 2:33:49 PM
Floccina, you mentioned you thought schools should teach probability; you'll be interested to know that here in Ohio we introduce probability in the primary grades. IIRC, my kid even did some probability in kindergarten, as hard as that is to believe.
We also introduce statistics early. Last year my kid spent a fair amount of time learning about "mode" because it's on the third-grade proficiency test. (I would have rather his teachers concentrated on his IEP goals but they weren't on the test, and that's another story.)
Someone else mentioned the ability private schools have to kick kids out. There are some Ohio charters that are famous for waiting until after the fall census (the head count upon which state funding is determined) to kick out the kids they don't want. So they go back to the public schools, but the money doesn't. Nice work if you can get it.
And on that note,if I only knew how to make a link, I'd put one in to the August issue of Harper's and that month's Noteboook column. It's titled "The Big Enchilada," by Jonathan Kozol, and it's all about education as one of the last big "market frontiers."
Posted by: Ohio Mom | Nov 8, 2007 3:27:44 PM
Thank you Jmack.
Posted by: SamChevre | Nov 8, 2007 3:43:59 PM
The nays make a good point that we should be very cautious about vouchers because once widely enacted they become an entitlement and it becomes very difficult to get rid of them even if they do yield good results. Better to push in the other direction encouraging more private education for example by charging the rich and middleclass to send their kids to Government schools. This would be easy to rescind if the results are not good. Schooling is becoming more private anyway with after school tutoring in places Sylvan learning centers and with home schooling and all its different styles growing. More and more people send their children to for profit schools (Sylvan learning centers etc.) to learn and to Government and other not for profits for credentials (that is for to be graded).
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 8, 2007 4:26:59 PM
Ohio Mom wrote:
"Floccina, you mentioned you thought schools should teach probability; you'll be interested to know that here in Ohio we introduce probability in the primary grades. IIRC, my kid even did some probability in kindergarten, as hard as that is to believe. "
It will be interesting to see if any evidence emerges that it helps them avoid the vicious state lotteries. He you seem any evidence that it is sinking in?
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 8, 2007 4:30:01 PM
No problem, Sam.
"Someone else mentioned the ability private schools have to kick kids out. There are some Ohio charters that are famous for waiting until after the fall census (the head count upon which state funding is determined) to kick out the kids they don't want."
Ohio Mom speaks the truth. The funds for these kids have already been allocated and distributed, then these same kids end up back in their original public schools sans funding.
And to follow up on the ODE information about state report cards, if a school doesn't make adequate yearly progress (AYP), the district can be downgraded even if it meets all other indicators. Many successful suburban districts are facing this. In addition, AYP is calculated by subgroups. In one case, because special education students did not make AYP on the Ohio Graduation Test, the district is now ranked as "Continuous Improvement" just like Columbus Public Schools are, even though the suburban district meets all of the other indicators. Moreover, it is possible for every building in a district to make AYP, but have the district fail to make AYP. This is because if a building does not have enough of a particular subgroup to count toward AYP, the state "pools" students from different buildings in the district and counts them as a subgroup that way. When a successful suburban district that has 90+% graduation rates, 80+% of graduates attending college, and has met all of the state indicators save one is ranked at the same level on the state report card as a struggling urban school, it is not hard to see why so many see state policies as attacks on public schools.
Posted by: jmack | Nov 8, 2007 5:01:10 PM
total absence of public oversight
That's a bit of a strawman. What voucher proponents actually argue for is not a total absence of state oversight, but an absence of state regulations that have little benefit and that can get in the way of hiring good teachers (e.g., what they say are pointless certification requirements, or contracts that keep schools from having control over who they hire). Right or wrong, that's the typical argument. Can you cite anyone who argues for "total" lack of oversight?
It might also be interesting to see if you could cite any actual voucher program that "totally" lack state oversight? I haven't had time to dig into every program's requirements, but the first three that I checked did have some oversight.
In Ohio, for example, the EdChoice Scholarship Program has a form that private schools must sign in order to be eligible. Private schools must attest to numerous conditions, including: (1) the school has to have permission to operate and must be in compliance with all the state's operating standards; (2) the school has to report its tuition structure; (3) the school has to agree not to charge extra tuition above the voucher in the case of impoverished students; (4) the school has to administer state tests and report its test scores; (5) the school has to make its facilities and records available for "announced and unannounced visits" by state regulators; (6) the school has to abide by the normal rules re: criminal background checks, building safety, food service licenses, bus inspections, etc.
Even Utah's school voucher law (now repealed) had a specific section called "eligible private schools." See here. In order to be eligible for vouchers, the private school must: 1) pass a financial audit; 2) comply with a federal anti-racial-discrimination law; 3) meet "state and local health and safety laws"; 4) administer annual testing; and 5) employ qualified teachers. Thus, even in one of the most conservative states in the country, there wasn't a total absence of state oversight.
Posted by: Stuart Buck | Nov 8, 2007 5:05:05 PM
"in this case, these schools are accountable to the public"
Not really. Ohio barely regulates charters, and that's why the AG has to go to court to try and shut any of them down.
On the point that Ohio is "going to close down the catastrophes" - the lawsuit only targets 3 of the many failing charters in Ohio. You might be speaking a bit to soon.
"I keep hearing that a total absence of public oversight mixed with financial incentives for schools to stay open -- and continue making money -- will fix education totally. Yet those two things appear to behind the failures here."
On this we can agree: charters shouldn't be able to escape accountability.
Posted by: Steve | Nov 8, 2007 5:19:16 PM
David in NY said:
"Those "private schools" that are really good in my area are charging $20-25,000 per year tuition. They are great, absolutely great. I recommend them to everyone. But they benefit not so much from parental "accountability" (the one to which my kids went for a few years when prices were lower absolutely shunned the oversight or suggestions of parents). Rather they benefit from astonishingly good resources and the power to kick out any kid who doesn't perform or who causes trouble. That's really all it takes to have a great school -- money and selectivity. Now the public schools, cash strapped and required to have "special education" etc., that's another matter."
In addition to that, many private schools use the public staff to help them write IEPs for special ed students. They do this because some of them(I'm thinking of a couple that specialize in autism locally) use uncertified teachers right out of college. I doubt that the parents understand how little training some of these kids have. I know this because I am one of the schmucks who gets to go to the autism centers, observe and test kids I don't know, and write their IEPs. It's a beautiful scam, isn't it???
Posted by: Susan | Nov 8, 2007 5:58:10 PM
The three measures are:All things you can dodge by cherry-picking your students. If you're a private school that doesn't have to take anyone who lives in your district, that is.
Voucher schools probably wouldn't resemble even the charter schools all that much, let alone traditional private schools. Most likely the market would be dominated by the same players that bombard daytime TV shows like Maury Povich and Texas Justice with ads for overpriced proprietary trade schools. There would be one "DeVry Elementary" in every neighborhood, but no competition except the existing public school. The visionary, outside-the-box schoolmaster of pro-voucher mythology would have no chance against DeVry's (or ITT's or Sylvan's) marketing budget or economies of scale.True, except in the South; there the only game in town would be schools run by well-funded fundies, who *want* to give bad educations to their students (America is a Christian nation, evolution is a lie, etc.) and don't care if they make money or not. When they meet up with parents who want their kids educated badly, trouble happens.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 8, 2007 8:15:21 PM
"True, except in the South; there the only game in town would be schools run by well-funded fundies, who *want* to give bad educations to their students (America is a Christian nation, evolution is a lie, etc.) and don't care if they make money or not. When they meet up with parents who want their kids educated badly, trouble happens. "
Who should decide what is taught with the people's money?
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 9, 2007 8:53:14 AM
I work with kids in NYC, and several of my kids go to a charter school for the arts. I am extremely pro-arts, I love the arts, I think all kids of all incomes should have access to the arts, I think they can be really enriching. I also think a fifth-grader should know what a state is. Having science class once a week or so probably wouldn't hurt anyone either.
Posted by: Isabel | Nov 9, 2007 6:06:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
