Last week, I wrote about the "Struggling Schools and the Problem with the 'Shut It Down' Mentality." The post seemed to strike a chord, so I would like to encourage my readers to consider the same framework for struggling charter schools. Most people who follow research on charter schools would agree that there is little evidence that, on average, students in charter schools gain any more than similar children in non-charters. Charter advocates admit this to be true, but point to positive effects documented for outstanding charter networks, such as KIPP, and often vow to "weed out" failing charters from their ranks.
Opponents of closure of traditional public schools seem to accept this tough love approach for charters. I would like to suggest that their circumstances, and solutions, are more similar than some may think.
Unfortunately, "weeding out" (i.e., shutting down) ineffective charters is no easier than shutting down ineffective non-charters. In both cases, there may be a reasonable rationale for closing down the worst of the worst, but not only is closing any school financially and politically wrenching, a recent study of closing public schools found that students from the closed schools perform worse than similar children for a year or more and then end up doing no better. School closure (in charters as well as non-charters) must be an extreme solution in extreme circumstances to keep the system honest, but if other solutions exist, they should be tried first...
Monday, October 31, 2011
Do Struggling Charter Schools Deserve a Second Chance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There is a lot wrong with the assertions in this article.
First, there is the citation of the now infamous CREDO report as evidence that few charters outperform public schools. Except, if you fully really read this report, it clearly says that charters do outperform once students have spent three years in them (even charters can't perform miracles in just one year).
So, Slavin (like a bunch of union folks and others in Kentucky) didn't fully read CREDO or didn't understand it.
Richard, how come I have never seen you point out this important finding in CREDO? The discussion starts on page 32.
Furthermore, CREDO has now published a number of follow-on studies that often find charters do outperform in states with good charter laws.
Slavin goes on to claim that closing charters is as hard as closing traditional public schools.
Nonsense.
While some charters have not been closed that need to be, the fact is that hundreds of charters have been shut down.
In contrast, I don't recall hearing about many public schools being shut down for cause. In fact, so far, none have been shuttered in Kentucky, though we got close with one Jefferson County school recently.
Anyway, the new NAEP scores show that achievement gaps for blacks are trending badly in Kentucky. This state needs charter schools, which work particularly well for minority kids.
If I were citing infamous reports on charter schools, CREDO would not be the first to leap to mind. Hoxby would be. But I tend to agree with Tom Guskey, that many of the charter studies have flaws of one kind or another.
It is for that reason that we shouldn't place too much faith in any of them. Instead it is better to read the various studies broadly, and when one does, it is impossible to conclude that charter schools are a magical solution in any way.
Don't we already know this?
Don't we know that it is the quality of the teachers and not how students are organized for instruction that makes the most difference?
My problem with charter schools is that while they present a better option in some narrow circumstances where existing persistently low-performing schools have failed to produce a quality education for too many students for too many years, they are not a magic bullet that is automatically better than other options.
So while I support a narrow charter law, that support is very weak. The manner of school organization just not all that central to the educational enterprise. We have great and terrible schools of every sort.
I felt the similarly about Kentucky's truly infamous primary program. Like the argument for charters, we were told that if we'd organize our schools like we organize our T-ball teams that all would be well. The argument was BS then, and it's BS now.
Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the charter argument in Jefferson for example, but would resist a broad expansion where charters might "compete" with public schools that are doing just fine.
I find good news in the NAEP. The long view (decades, not from year to year) is a trend of relatively steady progress. It is certainly true that gaps persist. But it is equally clear that it is a product of white students advancing along side black students - sometimes better and sometimes worse.
I some times wonder why we can justify changing the operational parameters for some students in the name of failed educational progress but we can't seem to imagine doing it the name of even higer and more diverse performance for successful schools and students. The increasing regulations and 20th Century perceptions of what school is suppose to be as well as how student achievement is so narrowly measured is equally limiting to all students. It goes well beyond charter vs. tradisional organization. We have got to unleash (dare I say "unbridle") education from the growing KDE, NCATE, EPSB, NEA, etc parameters which actually serve more as barriers than guideposts much less enhancemnts.
Post a Comment