Education Secretary Defends Charter Schools

[Rose Siding]

WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 - The federal secretary of education issued a statement Tuesday saying he stood by charter schools and challenged the conclusion of recent test data that their performance largely trailed that of regular public schools.

The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, reported in The New York Times on Tuesday, were extracted by researchers at the American Federation of Teachers from reams of data the Education Department released in November without public announcement. It was the first national comparison of test scores between students in charter schools and those in regular public schools.
...
"The Times made no distinction between students falling behind and students climbing out of the hole in which they found themselves," Mr. Paige said.

"It is wrong to think of charter schools as a monolith,'' he added. "There are schools for dropouts, schools for students who've been expelled, schools serving the most economically disadvantaged families. Charters are as diverse as the children they educate."

Mr. Paige declined to address questions directly.

http://nytimes.com/2004/08/18/education/18charter.html

[Nambe]

1. Testing does not work now? Call your boss and tell him, not us.

He appointed you to to give tests and do what you did in Houston. " penalizing administrators who head failing schools, prorating principals' salaries to student performance, and markedly increasing student test scores.' The tests you forced on Texas schools are widely disputed for their performance assesments. Like your boss, you somehow manage to talk the talk, you are useless to the mass of children forced to live under your supervision.

If this weren't a public forum, I would tell you what I really think of this camel dung and the harm he has done.

[goclark]

5. Paige ain't learneing and the kids ain't either

Why doesn't this fool get it?

His stupid plan is a failure.

The kids ain't learning folks, they ain't learning.

Oh happy day when Kerry comes into office and really works with educators and parents.

Oh happy day!

[poliguru]

7. Charter schools aren't necessarily horrible

The problem with charters is the same as what can make them really great - lack of oversight. Here in Chicago, many charters have done terribly, but some have been wonderful. And keep in mind, they are still public schools and must accept everyone who applies until they are full. If more apply than the school can service, a lottery is held. Some of these charters have given inner city kids an opportunity for a decent education that they otherwise wouldn't have gotten, and it also eases the overcrowding in the regular schools. If they weren't open to the public, I would be against them, but that's not the case. We need to shut them down if they can't produce results in a reasonable time (in IL I believe that's 5 years).

[MichiganVote]

8. Dream on. Exclusions are commonplace but not publicized.

[keep_left]

11. Correct.

There have been many ways of excluding kids that the charters don't want, both subtle and not-so-subtle. One of the ways has been to require huge amounts of volunteer time from parents in areas where there are a lot of single parents. Special ed kids are often dissuaded from matriculating as well, usually by claiming the school "isn't a good fit" or some BS. This has been widely covered; Edison Project (now Edison Schools) has been a master of this kind of thing.

See Gerald Bracey's site for some more info:

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA

Bracey has written some excellent books on the RW attack on public education.

[poliguru]

12. That's not to say there isn't good

You're basically saying that because some charters do what they aren't supposed to do, all are bad. That's a fallacy. As I said, there is not enough oversight, and so things will slip through. But as a teacher, I am more aware than most of the shit within the public school system that makes it almost impossible for real teaching to thrive. Charters have a place, as long as the basic rules are enforced and quality is monitored.

I'd also like to point out that regular public schools often "discourage" students, especially women and minorities, from opportunities such as advanced classes, certain extracurriculars, etc. Does that mean they are terrible and we should get rid of them? After all, those students are not receiving a fair education. Of course not - we look to improve. Charters simply have more room to experiment with things that may work better because they have more freedom - and then public schools pick up on those methods that work.

[keep_left]

13. You're ignoring evidence.

It's not just a couple schools that are a problem here. The problem is systemic and predictable and almost no one in my state (MN) is asking the hard questions. And the "freedom" is resulting in failures so egregious that had they occurred in regular public schools would result in the implosion of public education.

You need to ask yourself why these failures are being rationalized by the very people who are running these schools. See the other thread on charters for more comments from others and myself, including several links.

The bottom line is that the evidence shows that charters do no better and often much worse than regular public schools. That's the opposite of what all the charter advocates said would happen. Now they come up with other rationalizations for their existence when they're shown to be failing.

[poliguru]

16. I'm not ignoring evidence

You're missing my point. The concept of charter schools is good, and the failures in the system are no worse than the failures in the regular public school system. I realize many do not work the way they are supposed to, but there are some really good charter schools out there that DON'T discriminate and DO make a huge difference. I suggest you spend a month in an inner-city public school and then spend some time in a working charter. I'm simply suggesting that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Keep in mind - charters and vouchers are 2 different things. I am totally against vouchers. But charters have the ability to do what many public schools (esp. in huge, overloaded city districts) can't - reform education.

[keep_left]

18. Read the other thread on charters.

All I can say is based on what I've seen, charter schools are in general not a good thing. We agree to disagree. There has been evidence for a long time that the charters did no better and often much worse than regular public schools. Now we have yet more of the same evidence. The only thing that matters to me is the weight of the evidence on educational success and the culture of pervasive corruption that follows these schools everywhere they spring up. The other thread gives examples of the kinds of failures I'm talking about and they are indeed much, much worse than any public school. We're talking unauditable records, kids not getting books for six months, criminal activity, etc.

As I said in the other thread, here in MN we have had "charter schools" for 20+ years; they're called magnet schools and have been very successful in some of the worst inner-city districts. Now if you have a school board that refuses to be at all responsive to the public, maybe that's a valid reason for something like a charter. But many of the RWers that got on the charter bandwagon hate teachers and school boards and want charters as a back-door voucher. I think part of the goal is also to splinter the teachers' unions.

If there is limited money for schools, and the evidence shows these schools aren't living up to the hype, it's a no-brainer to me. Especially when you can deal a devastating blow to the RWers that hate public education.

[poliguru]

21. Magnets and charters are two different things

Let me clarify. Magnet schools are schools that, by law, can limit enrollment based on achievement and other criteria. That's very different than a charter school, which cannot limit enrollment based on those factors and generally serves a diverse population.

Please don't tell me again to see the other thread - I've already seen all the stuff on charters (I am a teacher and have thoroughly researched this area for a variety of different things). I understand the evidence that you are referring to in MN - but the MN model isn't the same as it is everywhere. Here in Chicago, we have regular public schools, charters, and magnets. I have firsthand experience with all three. The magnets, of course, perform at a high level because they can limit enrollment. The charters have spotty performance - some perform well, many don't and have their charter yanked as a result. There is constant monitoring of the charters. The regular public schools have a high rate of failure. Large city systems, like Chicago and New York, spend so much money administering these districts that the schools do not have the funding they need. In addition, they are often overcrowded. Charters do not take funding away from public schools, they ARE public schools, and parents are often eager to get their kids in because of the constant failure of their neighborhood school. Also, failure of the schools is not the only problem. Crime in the schools - even the elementary schools - is rampant in those areas. Because the admin is so large, schools are not watched very closely and do not usually do the things they need to do to be successful.

Those who are against charters generally are too impatient to wait and see if the experiment can work. The charter model is not perfect, but no one expected it to be the first time around. If we evaluate it and change what needs to be changed, it can be hugely successful.

And keep this in mind - if you had no choice but to live in a poor area of the city, and your neighborhood school was failing every year, and your kids were exposed to students who sold drugs, fought every day (in class!), failed, cut class, and had weapons on them - in elementary school! - would you be so dead set against charters? I doubt it. The large districts aren't going to change on their own in the next generation.

[keep_left]

22. We agree to disagree.

Well we agree on one thing: charter schools are public schools. As for the rest...

The charters here in MN and in many, many other places have a history of world-class incompetence and corruption that is not an anomaly. You will not see this kind of behavior in the regular public school system. Check out our charter law in MN and you will see that it's probably the toughest of all (thanks in large part to the AFT). Yet even our law has enough loopholes that no matter how well-intentioned the politicians may be, the problems persist. The charters in MN now have a more than 33% failure rate in producing auditable books, and we've had disasters with Edison Project where it took front-page headlines and prime-time news specials on the failure to bring down the school--and it still took two years to close. There's many more stories like this that I could regale you with. Why is this behavior OK for schools and scandalous for the Pentagon? The dollar amounts are comparable.

I don't begrudge poor parents for wanting to send their kids to better schools. That's why we created the magnet system and _many_ alternative schools as well, like the phenomenal Arts Ed high school (opposed by many RWers); while these schools may have waiting lists and lotteries, they do not _all_ discriminate based on achievement. I know this from personal experience; my siblings went to a magnet school where there were huge numbers of academically challenged kids. Someone here (you?) mentioned a fine arts charter school, I bet very similar to the MN Arts High School. I find it very hard to believe that a school for the arts is not going to have some admissions criteria based on talent. And like I have mentioned, the subtle forms of selectivity have been reported as well, like requiring extensive volunteer time in areas that have predominantly single-parent families, tracking special ed kids into other programs, etc. Edison took this to new levels by having the parents--and students--as a captive labor force when they started losing massive amounts of money. (They still are).

The behavior and crime problems are a separate issue. They're not what the charter people discussed when they came up with the idea, which in fact was discussed first at a national governors' conference many years ago. The issue was always about raising student achievement. Most of the charters have now been shown wanting in this regard yet again, in precisely the student populations they were created to help. City Pages (our local alternative press) covered the level of behavior and crime problems in the Edison school, and the teachers there had never seen anything like it. Furthermore, the Edison people had their own bureaucracy of suits that stifled any attempt to get the school's discipline problems under control.

The behavior problems result directly from the US allowing a level of socioeconomic disorder that other advanced countries simply will not tolerate. We're literally imploding our society into something like Brazil. Then we put the schools in charge of fixing problems they're not responsible for and don't let them boot the troublemakers. Small wonder that we have these problems, and it's inconceivable that _any_ urban public school will escape these challenges.

I'll plug Gerald Bracey again:

http://www.america-tomorrow.com/bracey/EDDRA

He has written several books on these topics.

[Greyskye]

19. I agree with you

Total agreement with your above points. I have firsthand experience with what you are talking about; my wife teaches at a charter Montessori school, and my son goes there. See my post below for more details and perspective.

[wildeyed]

23. Would changing the charters to magnet programs work?

In my city we have an extensive magnet program including language immersion, arts, Montessori, open education, international baccalaureate, traditional and a bunch others that I am missing. So tons of opportunities for students, but more oversite from the school district and no for-profits involved.

I understand that there are some good charter programs out there and many many gifted and committed teachers working for them. I also understand the frustration teachers have with the bureaucracy in the public schools that keeps them from doing the job they were trained for and love.

But any domestic policy embraced by bushco is highly suspect in my opinion. Other posters here have convinced me that many of these magnet programs are yet another boondoggle being foisted on the unsuspecting public by a bunch of greedy and unethical politicians and business men.

[daleo]

2. But seldom is it asked "Is our children learning?" - G "Chimp" Bush

Without a solid education, how will they be able to put food on their families?

[Bozita]

3. Paige forgot to mention "schools for profit"

[Bozita]

4. Private companies are available to staff and run your charter school

See? More good jobs for deserving Americans.

[JDPriestly]

6. Being Resident Bush means

never having to say you're sorry -- or wrong. Why can't they just admit when something isn't working?

[TahitiNut]

9. The proponents of publicly-financed privatized education ...

... are mouthing precisely the same arguments they themselves rejected when posed in defense of time-tested public education. At the same time, they're abandoning the promise of clear superiority. Now they'd have us believe it's about being almost as good or about as good.

The greed-obsessed went looking for cash cows in the public sector. They saw three areas: defense, education, and social security. All three offer the massive opportunity for ready-made profiteering.

[skippysmom]

10. Charter schools are not the magic bullet

I am not anti-charter schools -- many of them are quite innovative and quite good. But let's focus on fixing the schools we have, rather than just throwing out our public schools.

[yellowcanine]

14. This is the same guy who cooked the books on dropout rates in Houston.

Easy to get low dropout rates when students who quit go into the records as "transfers". His point about the diversity of charters is a crock also. The comparison was made between similar groups of students in charters vs. public schools. The whole premise of No Child Left behind has been shot to pieces (that "competition" and school choice will improve student achievement) and Paige and Shrub are backfilling now that it is clear the emperor is proven once again to be butt naked.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

15. Aren't charter schools

similar to re-inventing the wheel?

[Greyskye]

17. What you have to realize...

My wife is a teacher. She has taught in private, public and (now) a charter school. What most people do not realize, is that charter schools take a huge population of what are considered 'problem' kids. These are kids with learning disabilities, ADD/ADHD, social difficulities, etc. The teachers at charter schools often have the unforgiving task of taking kids who are currently not at grade level, and "catching them up" to the level that they should be performing at. This doesn't happen overnight. In the results that were just realeased for statewide testing, the grade levels at my wife's charter school where the majority of the kids have just come into the school are lower than average. However, the grade levels where the majority of the kids have been at the school for a few years the scores are higher than average.

Let me put it this way: Do you think that our 6 year old would be going to this same school if we didn't think that it was good?

[donco6]

24. I applaud those charters.

Sadly, here in Colorado, most charters are simply a new version of "white flight." Though touted as higher performing, the data from this study has totally rocked their world.

We formed new schools in our district without chartering, but with many of the same aspects - more autonomy, but still provide services like accounting (me), food service, special ed, etc. We have waiting lists from outside the district. I think this is the direction many districts should consider.

[NoBorders]

20. The AFT controlled for socio-econ background already

WHen they did their study, they controlled for students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, and they still did not do as well as kids in public schools. They compared the same type of students at the charters and publics and found the results they did. Charter schools may turn out to be beneficial, but they certainly haven't proved themselves yet.

[TahitiNut]

27. What they didn't identify is the incremental attention given by parents ..

... who involve themselves enough in their child's education to switch them to a charter school in the first place. This alone would, I believe, afford the charter schools an advantage in standardized testing. As a former teacher (parochial), I can wholeheartedly agree with studies that've shown parental involvement to be the largest single predictor of the educational success of a child. This more than accounts for the 'success' of home-schooling, I believe. Turning our public schools into political battlegrounds isn't the kind of 'involvement' I regard as productive. It's my impression that those most locally antagonistic to public schooling are either not parents or parents who already send their kids to private schools. Parents actually involved with their local schools are predominantly positive.

[robcon]

25. I think Paige is right

Charter schools are a godsend to parents whose kids cannot or will not be mainstreamed. From personal experience (my nephew), they work.

[Cocoa]

26. they hid the results

they have no credibility on this. Charter schools to these ideologues are the first step to dismantling public education. They have no interest in honestly assessing their bogus claims as to how well they perform, or how much accountability they're subject to.

[RememberTheCoup]

28. Please contribute to my thread in the education forum

Please contribute to my thread in the education forum regarding charter schools and other programs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=117x4475

Thanks!