The Newton School Committee passed a resolution to oppose the Charter School Ballot Question (Question 2) last week but it not unanimous, The TAB’s Laura Lovett reports.
School Committee members Margie Ross Decter, Ruth Goldman, Diana Fisher Gomberg, and Angela Pitter-Wright and Mayor Setti Warren voted in favor. Chairman Matt Hills and members Steve Siegel and Ellen Gibson voted against the resolution. Margret Albright abstained.
Will the School Committee’s endorsement — or the opposition from Hills, Siegel and Gibson — sway your vote?
Or do you agree with Albright who said:
“We are being dragged into something that is divisive and not productive,” said Albright, who preferred for the committee to not take a vote on the ballot question.
After much heated discussion on the issue all the members made their case for and against the lifting of the cap. Each person stated their position eloquently. In November I shall vote according to my own value system. However I do value the chance to hear each member and the public comments as well.
For how long have we left it to local government to provide education to our kid through high school. While in Newton, we can say the school system does a reasonably good job, it is clear, that in many communities local government has failed miserably.
I would find it hard to believe that any of the members of the school committee who voted in favor of the resolution(opposing more charter schools) would feel the same way, if they lived in a poor neighborhood, with chronically underperforming schools, and did not personally have the means to send their child to a private school.
Let people decide where their money will go. If the schools did such a good job, parents wouldn’t be clamoring for charter schools.
Many mayors and School Committees from cities/towns with underperforming school systems have come out in opposition to this ballot question. The Mayor of Boston is opposed and in fact, on the same night the Newton SC voted, the Boston SC unanimously voted to oppose question 2. Other examples where local School Committees have opposed Q2 include Holyoke, Lowell, Chelsea, Revere. At this point well over 150 SC’s around the state are in opposition to this ballot question because it takes such an extreme step toward privatizing public education in Massachusetts.
Thank you to Diana Fisher Gomberg, Margie Ross Decter, Angela Pitter-Wright, Ruth Goldman and Mayor Setti Warren for their great leadership on this issue and for standing strong for public education in Massachusetts.
Thank you Steve and Ellen. As the Boston Globe reported recently, Charter schools are public schools and they are not draining money from traditional public schools.
Students who are behind academically need longer school years and extra support before and after school. Low income families cannot afford tutors or summer programs. Many of these students are stuck at home all summer, with little to no enrichment opportunities, because their families are working and an able to transport them to programs, parks, etc. and afraid to let them outside alone in places that aren’t as safe as Newton.
Academically, studies from reputable places like MIT, consistently show public charter schools in low income areas narrow, if not eliminate, the achievement gap.
The argument that charter schools were just to be test labs is pointless, because after 20 years traditional public schools still resist adopting the best methods of charter schools – look at the running battle to get just an extra 1/2 hour of instruction in Boston or the state law requiring last in-first out firing of teachers regardless of their performance in traditional public schools.
I almost always agree with Lucia but I have issues with Question 2. First I don’t think it should even be on the ballot. It is no way to decide policy issues and this one is much more complex and nuanced than it appears.
Second It is not just about choice . This is a push for privatization of our public schools. It’s a movement to allocate public money into private hands without oversight or accountability and it has the potential to create separate and unequal schools. This is why the NAACP national board is opposed to charter schools.
Third, it fails to recognize the critical link between poverty and school performance. More than 20% of our children live in poverty and in racially isolated neighborhoods. This is the problem that we need to address.
Question 2 is also an unfunded mandate that ultimately burdens the public schools because it provides no financial plan on how it could serve all our children. There should be a weighted student formula based on the actual costs to serve all students including, special needs, English language learners and children with developmental delays and behavior or cognitive issues. In addition, the public schools are paying for all transportation costs -not an insignificant cost for most school districts.
Finally, its anti-democratic. The American democratic system is fundamentally entwined with the public schools which educates 96% of all our children.
Alison – what you see as privatization, I see as local control. Charters have boards with parents and teachers on them. Many, like KIPP, were started by teachers. I agree schools should be run by non-profits, but are you opposed to colleges accepting donations from rich individuals and businesses? NPS receives grants and, I believe, pays for a grant writer.
You’re right about poverty and performance. Charters, and Catholic schools, are the only schools I know of that consistently have low-income students succeeding academically.
American public schools are more segregated economically and racially, than in 1968. One big reason why – housing and property taxes paying for local education. The wealthy the community, the better the schools.
Is it democratic that low-income families have only access to under-performing schools?
“New data compiled by the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s watchdog, show that the number of high-poverty public schools serving primarily black and Hispanic students nationwide more than doubled, to some 15,000, between the turn of the century and 2014. A bout 16 percent of K-12 public schools now serve predominantly poor, minority students, which also means their students are more likely to lack access to math, science and advanced-level classes and to face higher rates of suspensions, expulsions and other harsh discipline.
Put another way, 62 years after the Supreme Court acted to end segregation in public education, U.S. schools in the 21st century are rapidly resegregating — a function of widening disparities in wealth, entrenched housing patterns and policies, and disparate allocations of funding by government at all levels.
The fault is widely shared. The Supreme Court bears a measure of blame for a 1973 ruling allowing schools to rely primarily on local property taxes for funding. That decision enshrined a system in which Zip codes determine funding levels, saddling poor neighborhoods with resource-starved schools burdened with overcrowded classes and underpaid teachers. The federal government, which provides public schools with less than 10 percent of their funding, is ill-equipped to compensate, and many states make little effort to even out disparities. Sharply increased funding is not an adequate answer, but without it poor schools will be unable to attract the talented teachers they need.” A resurgence of resegregation, 06/05/16 http://www.washingtonpost.com
Matt and Ellen voted exactly how I would have. They voted against consuming precious time. When forced to take a side, they stood on the side of the parents and kids. Margret’s statement is spot on.
I have always supported Question 2 in principle, but have been uncertain about the details. Everyone should listen to the public comment at the beginning of the last two School Committee meetings. It solidified my opinion. The pro-comments are direct, forceful, and moving. The vague anti-comments fail to give a compelling reason why we should prevent a parent from trying to help their kids get a good education.
I agree with Alison Leary, and particularly agree that a ballot question is the worst way to decide whether to lift the cap on charter schools. The most troubling aspect of this issue is the impact on the children who will be left behind because they still cannot get into a charter school. Boston, Lowell and other communities will lose tens of millions of dollars to charter schools, and will still have to pay for transportation and out-of-district placements (which can be very expensive) and classroom aides for students with profound disabilities, who will not be educated in the charter schools. That leaves less funding for both special education and regular education in those school districts. Which means that all students in public schools in those communities will suffer to one degree or another. That, to me, is an inherent unfairness that needs to be fixed before the state takes more money out of public schools and puts it into charter schools, regardless of the merits.
Totally agree with Alison Leary and Ted Hess-Mahan.
Totally disagree with Ted and others who use the same reasoning (Marti, Jane, Alison, etc).
Here is why the scare tactics don’t hold. First, there is incredible evidence that kids in charter schools have better outcomes, not just better test scores, but things like higher rates of college admissions, lower teen pregnancy rates, lower rates of incarceration, etc. There are hundreds of studies. I have yet to find any peer-reviewed study that shows that the kids that stay in the public school do worse. So, there is no evidence of what Ted calls the “troubling aspect..” If anyone has seen a peer-reviewed study, please point me to it.
Second, resources leaving the public school, per se, is not an issue. If kids and total funding leave at the same rate, funding per public school student stays the same. Public schools lose less than the average cost, thus the average funding per remaining student GOES UP.
Wait. It gets better. As any economist will tell you, in the long run, all costs are variable. The calculation for average cost does not include the cost of land and buildings. If a couple hundred kids leave a district for a charter school, the district can sell a school. This money can be added to the in-district funding per student, so in-district funding per student goes up even more than you would think. I don’t see how anyone can come up with a back of the envelope calculation (that considers things like SPED funding being more expensive) that implies that charter schools reduce the ability of public schools to provide the same quality education, which is consistent with the peer-reviewed evidence.
As I see it, it is a win-win. Charter students win. The students remaining in the district win. No one (especially with political aspirations) talks about teacher unions, but I’ll introduce the topic. The only possible losers are teachers’ unions. I love teacher unions. My mom was a member a teachers union. That being said, I love kids more. The choice is easy.
I am reminded once again of the old joke about a physicist, a chemist, and an economist who were stranded on a desert island with no tools and a can of food. The physicist and the chemist each devise ingenious but impractical ways to get the can open. The economist merely says: “assume we have a can opener.”
Jeffrey, what you fail to take into account is that the student population left behind will have a higher concentration of children with profound disabilities that are not in the charter schools. The cost of providing special education to these students can be expensive, particularly for tuition for out-of-district special education placements. These are students that charter schools do not provide services for. The resources available for both regular and special education in those school districts will be reduced, so those students will be disadvantaged. The more charter schools there are, the more concentrated the proportion of profoundly disabled students becomes, and fewer resources will be available to meet their needs and the needs of students who are not disabled, and the more disadvantaged they all are.
But since you mention studies, another troubling aspect of charter schools is that they tend to discipline minority and disabled students more often, compared to white students. Here are the most alarming findings in one such study:
-In the 2011-12 school year, 374 charter schools suspended 25% of their enrolled student body at least once.
-Nearly half of all Black secondary charter school students attended one of the 270 charter schools that was hyper-segregated (80% Black) and where the aggregate Black suspension rate was 25%.
-More than 500 charter schools suspended Black charter students at a rate that was at least 10 percentage points higher than the rate for White charter students.
-Even more disconcerting is that 1,093 charter schools suspended students with disabilities at a rate that was 10 or more percentage points higher than for students without disabilities.
-Perhaps the most alarming finding is that 235 charter schools suspended more than 50% of their enrolled students with disabilities.
While not all charter schools fall into this category, and public school districts are not immune to this problem, the lack of local control over charter schools by the school district prevents districts sending their students to charter schools from having effective oversight. And for majority-minority school districts, like Boston, this should cause some concern for students, parents and school administrators alike.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to charter schools, on principle. But the resulting funding and other inequities that further expansion could bring in Massachusetts should be resolved through a deliberative legislative process, rather than decided by an up or down ballot question. In the current school year, charter schools will drain $450 million from public school districts, who must try to make up for declining education aid with funding from other departments and/or closing and consolidating neighborhood schools. And while some charter schools have helped low income and minority students in urban areas close the education gap, the funding issue creates the specter of a two-tier education system that disadvantages traditional public schools serving the vast majority of minority students in Massachusetts, which is why the regional chapter of the NAACP is opposed to Question 2.
Ted. This is the third time you told that joke. If you tell it again, I will ask you to reimburse me for the crack in my computer screen.
Contrary to your assertion, neither of us has seen a study that shows that the introduction of charter schools diminishes local schools. Yeah, we can make up a scenario where half of the students are disabled and are three times as expensive to educate, and the other half leave for a charter school and resources are stretched. This example is not realistic. Realistic assumptions won’t forecast a local school short fall.
Some parents like discipline. I prefer a more disciplined school environment for my kids. The author of the study you mention has another study that shows that Black children are disciplined more than White children in public schools. You can’t blame charter schools for a broad issue.
A recent Boston Globe article reports that 86% of Boston Latino parents and 81% of Boston African American parents support Question 2. I think they know what is best for their kids—better than the NAACP, or the teacher’s union, or the Newton School Committee, or even THM. This time, let’s let their voices carry the day, not ours.
In law school, my Legislation professor used to say “The IP process was designed to hold a hammer over the legislatures head.”
Politicians have had decades to meaningfully address the root causes of dysfunction that lead to such poor outcomes in too many of our public schools. To those who believe that we need wait on politicians to solve all of our problems, I ask: At what point do we begin to look at the facts and ask ourselves, as a society, can we do better?
Tom says, In law school, my Legislation professor used to say “The IP process was designed to hold a hammer over the legislatures head.” Assuming you mean Individual Plans or Individual Education Plans (not Interagency Plans), there are so many nuances to the meaning of that sentence – depending on the different perspectives of those saying it.
Not being a lawyer or having attended law school, I bring different perspectives to its meaning. My first one was as a parent with both degrees in education and teaching experience but more importunately with a child who learned differently without an obvious reason. Read early. Learned most things quickly. Adapted easily. From this perspective, I found advocating for my child to eventually obtain an IEP to be a challenging, arduous, time-consuming process. It was a small victory to have a limited amount of say in my child’s education but there was never a “hammer” to hold over anything – it was a continuous battle.
In the midst of this struggle, I completed post-graduate studies in both advocacy and educational strategies for children with Asperger’s Syndrome and became an advocate for my child and others who were struggling from an early age. This perspective, similar but different from my parental one, formed while working with the legislature to overhaul special education and from it I can sincerely say, only a moneyed lobbyist holds any “hammer” over the legislature.
As an educator, I experienced total frustration with the legislature over losing the money needed to teach any child who needed different tools and methods in order to realize the potential hidden beneath the labels, to guide and facilitate their discovery of their own worth and their path to success.
Another perspective is the one I learned from my child. It is one of appreciation for the fighters (both the children and advocates), the teachers and the legislatures that recognize the need for funds to educate those who learn differently. Appreciation for a process that encouraged opening eyes and mind to allow a vision of obtainable success that came to fruition.
As a grandparent of and advocate for a child with dyslexia, my perspective is one of anger that any law school is teaching that anyone without means can “hold a hammer” over either a legislative body or particularly a corporate entity. The ones you speak of who are 80+% in favor of lifting the cap on charter schools WITHOUT FURTHER STUDY have little power and ultimately very few choices in life. Parents of little economic means want all of the same things for their children that I want for mine but do not have the time or resources to do what I did. They are influenced by those in any kind of power because they feel powerless themselves. Charter schools are not public schools in practice. Both public and charter schools are funded by the taxpayers in their district and are free to attend, but true public schools have oversight by the officials elected by those taxpayers who can be held accountable come election time. They do have the power to vote. Charter schools are overseen by themselves and managed by corporate boards – parents, taxpayers have no one to hold accountable when they abruptly close during the school year or suspend students for falling behind on their studies. Accountability is what offers choice and control.
@Lucia, again I want to reiterate how difficult it is to make policy decisions via a referendum and the complexity of this particular issue.
Community based, democratically controlled public schools and the school committee/boards that are elected are very much local control. Charter schools can be locally controlled as well, if they are run by parents and teachers, but that is not always the case. One example is Eva Moskowitz and her Success Academy Charter Schools which has a lot of Wall Street one percenters on the Board. There are many other examples of this.
I am uncomfortable with the trend toward privatization of our public schools and the movement towards a 2-tiered school system. I also worry that the growth of charter schools will exacerbate the re-segregation of the schools which you mention is already happening.
Jeffrey seems to refer to these concerns as “scare tactics” and dismisses them, but I have not heard a satisfactory plan as to how we will manage to support and fund 2 separate school systems. The devil is always in the details.
How will market based mechanisms, that created the inequalities in the first place suddenly make things better? How will a system of public education built around parent choice and school competition improve the inequalities that are causing the underfunded and under-performing schools we see in some communities today?
We need to dig deeper than the schools. Poverty and racial isolation are inherently linked to poorer academic performance. These is where we need to focus. Is it democratic that 20 % of all Americans own 85% of the wealth? The charter school debate is a distraction from the real problems of poverty and racial segregation. I agree the fault is widely shared. But we need a financial model to go along with the expansion of the charter school program. Right now there is not one.
@Jeffrey, where is the “incredible evidence” that kids in charter schools have better outcomes? I would like to see those reports. What I have found in the literature is findings such as “the overall performance of charter schools relative to demographically similar school districts is mixed, and the results vary considerably within states” or “the impacts of charter schools on student achievement were negative but not statistically significant”.
A rigorous study commissioned by the U.S. Dept. of Education showed that charter school’s students performed no better than public school students.
Also, the State’s funding mechanisms for charter schools is so complex I wonder how many people fully understand it. Jeffery your statement, “if kids and total funding leave at the same rate, funding per public school student stays the same. Public schools lose less than the average cost, thus the average funding per remaining student GOES UP”, is simply not correct.
One example from my friend in Northampton who shared with me that State figures show that the Northampton Public Schools paid $2.25 million in charter school tuition for about 200 students while receiving state aid of about $359,000 in FY 2015
How can this be? Take a look Charter School Funding, Explained, from the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.
State reimbursements are subject to annual appropriations and the Legislature has not funded reimbursements at 100% level. In the last 2 years the State has funded about 2/3 of the funding based on their formula for reimbursement.
I do think there is a role for charter schools. I was reading about innovative charters including programs that educates adults and their prekindergarten-age children, a boarding school for students in foster care and an immersion high school offering three languages and an all-girls school. There was also a story on a school focused on disconnected youths, 14- to 21-year-olds who are not working, not in school or at risk of dropping out. These sound like great programs to me.
Thanks Alison. I can’t respond to everything now. I will provide a lengthy list of academic studies by serious scholars when I have more time.
In the meantime, the example of Northampton is perfect for illustrating my point. “Northampton Public Schools paid $2.25 million in charter school tuition for about 200 students while receiving state aid of about $359,000.” Her numbers imply that the net cost of funding the charter schools is $1.89M. The MA DOE reports that Northampton spends an average of $14,057 per student. 200 charter students imply a cost savings of $2.81 million. Northampton just netted $600K! Let’s all say, “Thank you, charter schools!” We can quibble about disabled students costing more or perhaps it might take a couple years to trim the admin, but this won’t change the big picture. Remember that average cost does not include property and land. With 200 students leaving the district, an entire school can be sold and the revenue can be used to bump up the district’s surplus even further.
Alison – We already have a 2 tiered educational system. Public schools in urban and rural districts greatly differ from public schools in rich suburbs. Here a link to Stanford’s study, in a recent BG article: “Boston’s charter schools show striking gains: Test scores surpass traditional public schools, counterparts nationwide” https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/03/18/
I also don’t think public schools can get much more segregated. “Losing ground shows that over 25% of the state’s Black and Latino students attended intensely segregated schools (90-100% minority) during the 2012-2011 school year, a substantial increase from 1989 when 11% of Black students and 6% of Latino students attended intensely segregated schools. The study also finds an increase in the double segregation of the state’s students by both race and class, with low-income students comprising 85% of the student body in the state’s intensely segregated schools in 2010, up from 71% in 1999.” http://www.otlcampaign.org/resources/losing-ground-school-segregation-massachusetts
THM – where do you get this $ for charters “draining” money from the public schools? The MA Taxpayers Association says this is false. http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/charter-schools-are-not-draining-district-budgets/
When students leave a school because they move districts or out of state are they draining money? Charter school funding minimally touches Newton – 5 students last year – compared to the fluctuations from families moving or switching to private.
During a too busy week for me, I’d like to express appreciation to Alison Leary, Marti Bowen, and Ted Hess Mahan for presenting a compelling case for voting No on Question #2.
My only advice at this point is this: follow the money. 80% of the funding for the Yes vote ($19 million at last count) has come from out-of-state PAC money, so we don’t know who the donors are or what their intentions are. We do know that several weeks ago, the Walton family of Walmart fame donated close to $2 million – a drop in the bucket for a family that has a long history of treating its employees poorly. What does this family hope to gain by undermining the best public school system in the country?
I know that the response will be that it’s all about the evils of teachers unions. My response is this: the union is really actual teachers – as in your child’s/grandchild’s teacher. The teachers in this union voted to increase its dues to pay for this campaign. So let’s compare: the Waltons who care nothing about public education in Massachusetts and donate $2 million that means nothing to them, to your local teachers who voted to raise their dues and pound the pavement every weekend to stop this poorly conceived referendum.
This referendum has little to do with whether or not you support charter schools. The real question is this: do you truly believe that the state of Massachusetts can open 12 quality charter schools every year, without an endpoint? Because that’s what this referendum does. It allows 60 new schools in 5 years, 120 in 10 years. All with no oversight by the local school board/committee. All who answer only to the state.
This referendum has the potential to undermine public education throughout the state for decades to come. I hope voters will read the referendum question so they know exactly what they’re voting for.
@Jane: follow the money indeed. The teachers have increased their dues for this campaign, and why is that? To deny the obvious, that this is about jobs for teachers would be naive. Teachers could always change their current contracts to permit significant changes to the schools that are well known to be needed; but they don’t. Certianly a right of there’s, but families of underperforming schools are sick and tired of teachers and administrators, not delivering the quality needed for their children to perform. And to make matters worse, those same people blame the kids and their families for the lack of performance.
It is completely disingenuous to suggest the Walton’s even care about the Newton schools. They are looking at the bigger picture.
Look at it this way, you say, for the good of everyone, keep all the money in public schools, even though some systems are failing. Overall, it is better.
Walton is saying, for the good of everyone, let some of the money out into alternative schools, even though it will result in less money for the traditional public system. Overall, it is better.
What do you say to parents in failing school systems, who can not afford to move or private options? Because that is the real issue. They don’t have the time to wait to see the unions make concessions, or to figure out a way for things to improve. There is little evidence it will. And they have been waiting a very long time. Now they have an option, and they want it. Why should you deny that family?
It doesn’t make Walton evil because they run a profitable business. Ever talk to someone working in a Walmart? They seem more content with management than Newton School teachers do with theirs.
Neal, I agree with some of your last comment but saying,
“Walton is saying, for the good of everyone …” removes any credibility.
Are you against all unions as the Walton’s are? Or just teacher’s unions?
Walmart workers need a job, no matter how they are treated and individually they are not about to do something to lose it. Being content in them = content to suffer abuse to earn a paycheck even though most still qualify for food stamps.
Jane has raised a point that I have heard from other Q2 opponents. That a yes vote means 12 more new charter schools every year without end. But does it really? Q2 would allow the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to approve up to 12 new charter schools per year, with preference given to low performing districts. It doesn’t require 12 new charters per year. If the applicants don’t meet the state’s rigorous approval and review standards, no charter. Most importantly, if the parade of horribles feared by Q2 opponents comes to pass, the state legislature is free to take corrective action and lower the cap. The increase need not be permanently enshrined in the general laws.
Lucia, MTF’s study excluded costs for out-of-district special education costs (which are substantial) from its calculations because it was not “relevant” to charter schools. (See footnotes 2 and 7.) To me, that is a fundamental flaw in their analysis.
Let’s stop demonizing teachers’ unions. Public school teachers who work in Boston and Lowell and in other underperforming schools know first hand about the challenges that public schools in urban areas that educate mainly low income, minority and disabled students face, and they care a lot about the quality of education that their students are receiving. That is why most of them became teachers in the first place. Because they sure as hell didn’t do it to get rich.
@ Marti & Ted: No one is demonizing teachers unions; and I support teacher’s unions to a point. I do believe in an honest evaluation of a situation, and the fact is underperforming schools are a menace to the future of our society. This needs to be taken seriously and for too long, nothing happened. Now an alternative which parents seem to like comes along, and if you support it, you are opposed to teachers?It is typical straw man doctrine.
If a city doesn’t provide proper education and parents want to take their kids somewhere else, then why in world would you oppose it? Because teacher’s might lose their jobs? Jobs they weren’t doing very well? The problem is, they get laid off by seniority, so you might let a good one go. Who do you blame for that? Teacher’s unions I’m afraid.
Ted, please answer why a parent in an underperforming school, shouldn’t have the right to take their child elsewhere- I can’t imagine you would be arguing long and hard if it were your kid, and you couldn’t afford it.
Whatever the financial fallout from this, cities and towns have themselves to blame, and will just have to figure it out, or risk even more charter schools opening.
Parents in underperforming schools send their children to better districts to day, in Boston and Springfield. Its called METCO. @Jane or @THM – I am curious how do you justify this difference?
So does Boston/Metco pay Newton per student as will be required by a city/town for a student enrolling in a Charter School?
Neil- You say you don’t object to teachers’ unions (whose members are 75% female, but who’s asking? I’m sure the anger at teachers unions has nothing to do with THAT).
But then you say: “Teachers could always change their current contracts to permit significant changes to the schools that are well known to be needed; but they don’t.” What part of the contract would change the outcome for children? Unfortunately, we don’t have that much power, though I sure wish we did.
“families of underperforming schools are sick and tired of teachers and administrators, not delivering the quality needed for their children to perform.” Sorry, Neal, but I’m just not feeling the love.
“It doesn’t make Walton evil because they run a profitable business.” Or deny their workers health benefits and a living wage. If the Waltons are your idea of a high minded family looking out for kids whose families struggle to make a living wage, then it’s best we agree to disagree.
Neal and Neal P – I’m not opposed to charter schools and I fully support the METCO program. However, I do not support a referendum question that will decimate the best public school system in the country. I cannot sit by and listen to people who don’t understand that corporate America sees education as a business from which to profit. Because that’s who’s behind this question.
Anyone who thinks the Waltons and the hedge fund managers funding Question 2 are out to “save the children” are living in a different universe from mine.
Comment@Joanne – Boston or Springfield get more state reimbursements for students in Charter school than in METCO program. This article examines the METCO/Charter hypocrisy quite well http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/a-school-choice-double-standard/
@Jane – If we left everything to politicians, we would still be waiting for gay marriage. Sometimes end justifies the means. And better educational outcome certainly justifies ballot question.
Actually Neal P – how much does Newton get for the 400+ Metco children we educate? If Cities need to pay the Charter Schools why is Boston NOT paying Newton for educating their children. And paying for the transportation to get them to Newton?
I am glad the the article mentioned the data issue. Although METCO has been around (and tax payer funded) for 50 years, they have refused to release data needed for researchers to determine whether or not METCO kids are better off. Charter schools have have been forthcoming with their data, spawning a plethora of studies. The cynic in me, thinks that METCO knows what a study would find.
Although METCO has not released the data needed to determine if METCO kids are better off, they released some data to researchers for a 2004 study that investigated whether or not the presence of METCO students in a class is associated with performance of non-METCO students. My big picture summary is that there is no-association. The exception is that non-METCO minority girls in classes with METCO students have lower third grade math performance.
I have only seen one METCO study in a peer review journal. There are scores of charter studies that document positive effects. Why should we hold charter schools to a hurdle that is so much more stringent than METCO?
Jeffrey, I agree completely that the METCO program needs impartial study to determine the answers to many questions. As Gail Spector wrote in a 2010 Tab editorial, discussed on the Tab Blog, METCO is a hard subject to discuss in Newton. http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2010/04/28/why-is-it-so-hard-to-discuss-metco/#axzz4NLuVawW1
However, this vote applies to Charter Schools.
The most important takeaway from this study, for me, is “more needs to be done,” which is a major reason an up and down vote, being funded by hedge funds and out of state dark money from supporters of mass privatization, to raise the charter school cap is the wrong way to make this decision. The place for this decision is the Massachusetts legislature composed of our elected officials who can be held accountable by the voters in MA.
STANFORD, Calif.—June 25, 2013—”A new, independent national study … reveal[s] that the charter school sector is getting better on average …
As welcome as these changes are, more work remains to be done to ensure that all charter schools provide their students high-quality education.”
https://credo.stanford.edu/documents/