According to an article in today’s Times, charter schools are failing to live up their promise.
The data shows fourth graders attending charter schools performing about half a year behind students in other public schools in both reading and math. Put another way, only 25 percent of the fourth graders attending charters were proficient in reading and math, against 30 percent who were proficient in reading, and 32 percent in math, at traditional public schools.
Because charter schools are concentrated in cities, often in poor neighborhoods, the researchers also compared urban charters to traditional schools in cities. They looked at low-income children in both settings, and broke down the results by race and ethnicity as well. In virtually all instances, the charter students did worse than their counterparts in regular public schools.
I am disappointed. I could easily imagine that alternative schools would attract some talented, younger teachers. What is going wrong? Are these alternative schools just attracting faculty who don’t like supervision?
Of course, the 30% proficient rate in 4th grade reading in public schools is hardly something to crow about. Perhaps what this data suggests more than anything is that educational reforms don’t make much difference at all. It’s all environmental. In a sidebar in the Times article they break down the data by ethnicity, location, and income. This is where the real differences lie.
UPDATE: Mickey Kaus (and Wendy to the rescue). In today’s entry, Kaus points out that the differences between public and charter schools are not statistically significant. The UFT hesitated to make unqualified judgments about the differences between the two types of schools, but the Times had no problem with it.
Apt. 11d 
I don’t see anything in the report which challenges the primary argument for charter school arrangements: namely, that many kids (though obviously not all) would benefit from specialized educational environments, ones not so hampered by whatever particular pedagogy or priorities dominate in any given district. It would be icing on the cake if it turned out that the opportunities afforded by charter schools attracted the best students and teachers alike, and resulted in superior test scores across the board, but that won’t happen–as the article makes clear–without a lot more money, oversight, and accountability. Those who think charter schools are a way to do education on the cheap, or escape the state or the Man or whomever else they fault for their children’s poor education, have only themselves to blame for taking a good idea and refusing to follow through. (Of course, the fact that there are often artifical obstacles to following through set up by charter school opponenets is relevant.)
LikeLike
“(Of course, the fact that there are often artifical obstacles to following through set up by charter school opponenets is relevant.)”
Not relevant in my particular anecdotage salt mine. Rather, charter schools that acquire a rep for handling students in an individualistic and (potentially) effective way get inundated by students who are, for whatever reason, um, not the highest performing fraction (behaviorly and scholastic) of the ordinary public schools. These kids were warehoused in those schools, and the charter schools are actively seeking to do the same thing, but are handicapped by their lack of resources (scale, primarily). (It’s possible the dynamic is completely different in almost all of the rest of the country, this is a sub 100K metropolitan area far from any significant urban area.)
It’s sad, I think, that approaches to education that spare the whip and seek to stimulate the mind at least partly through individualized attention appear to be ineffective in the current environment. And although my kid would stand to benefit the most if ability or behavioral discrimination were allowed, I can’t agree that that would be the best social policy overall. More money might help though.
LikeLike
I wish the issue of charter schools wasn’t so politicized. There is certainly room to encourage innovative schools and individualized teaching experiences. What’s wrong is that charter schools have been linked to (and rightfully so, in many cases) attempts to devalue public education.
The right-wing pro-voucher crowd is already on the case, attacking the NY Times reporter and the AFT. Mickey Kaus at Slate has a pretty good summary of all the attempts to discredit the report.
At the least, it will make you feel a little better, Laura. 🙂
LikeLike
Blowback on charter schools
Diana Jean Schemo’s New York Times front-pager on Tuesday about an American Federation of Teachers report claiming that charter schools are underperformers compared to public schools has caused Laura at the (newly moved) Apartment 11D to despair: I am …
LikeLike
Charter schools failing?
I would be a poor public sociologist if I didn’t say something about the NY Times article about charter schools that seems to have everyone talking (see Laura’s disappointed post). This is actually an area where I have done research (althou…
LikeLike
Laura, I know you’re busy, but I hope you will revisit this issue when you’re more available and maybe address a question/issue I have with the criticisms of the article, the need to attack it by Kaus and the people he cites, the desperate need I’m seeing in some bloggers/commentators to believe that it doesn’t mean that charter schools are bad.
You have to count me in as someone who does not think the public school system is the pit of despair that others think. I like to see innovation, creativity, and initiative rewarded, and I think there are some incompetents in charge in some places, but overall, I think the public education system works as it should.
What I am seeing out of all the relieved observations that “if you control for this” and “look at the differing populations” is this: it’s not the teachers or the curriculum that determines the success of a school. It is the students.
And you know what? Teachers have always known that. But people who have supported vouchers, who have choked off funding to public schools, who pass legislation like NCLB, who think charters are the answer–they all haven’t learned that yet. Maybe this report will start opening some eyes.
Students in poverty have a difficult time learning. Why? Stress. Lack of parental involvement. My department is paired up with an urban school a few blocks away. We donate time and supplies to the school and the students. We just got a note from the person coordinating this program. “The children do not need school supplies right now. If you want to donate something, the children need underwear and socks.” Does a 7-year-old wearing underwear learn more effectively than a child without underwear? Let’s look at it this way–I’m sure no one reading this blog/comment would be willing to put it to the test, which basically answers the question.
LikeLike