In this week’s Newton TAB, Editor Andy Levin urges voters to vote yes on Question 2, a ballot initiative that would allow for up to 12 more charter schools per year.
A couple of excerpts:
“According to Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), students in Massachusetts’ charters receive the equivalent of an extra month-and-a-half of reading instruction and an extra two-and-a-half months of math instruction in an academic year relative to their peers in district schools. Also according to CREDO, Boston charter students see the most academic improvement in the country relative to their district-school peers.”
and
“The Boston Opportunity Agenda has reported what should be considered the most important statistic for any high school: In 2016, 98.5 percent of Boston charter school graduates were accepted into college, with almost 90 percent headed to a four-year school. Those numbers are on par with the state’s best school districts, including Newton.”
I’m not sure if I agree with him but I’m always glad to see him take a stand.
Regardless of the merits of charter schools, the issue of whether to raise the cap should be decided through a deliberative, legislative process rather than an up or down ballot question. Urban school districts that are all already stressed lost $450 million in funding to charter schools this year, and stand to lose another $100 million a year if Question 2 passes. Elected officials in cities that will be most affected, like Boston and Lowell, as well as the regional chapter of the NAACP, and numerous other school committees, including Newton’s, are all opposed to Question 2 because they are concerned that it will result in a two-tier school system that will disadvantage traditional public schools that educate mostly low income, minority and disabled students. These equity and funding issues are better left to our elected state representatives to resolve before lifting the existing cap on charter schools.
In 2002, voters approved a ballot question that eliminated bilingual education for non-English speaking students, and replace it with a so-called “English Immersion” program. The English Immersion campaign, which was also known as Question 2, was heavily financed by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz, who had funded similar campaigns in California and Arizona. By every measure, English immersion, or “ELL” (“English Language Learners”) programs have failed non-English speaking students in Massachusetts public schools. ELL students, who make up almost 8 percent of students statewide, are 1.5 times more likely to drop out. In 2011, the Department of Justice ruled that, by failing to provide adequate learning environments for ELLs, Massachusetts was violating the civil rights of ELL students.
Let’s not make the same mistake again. Vote NO on Question 2. We should rely on the legislative process to work out those equity and funding issues to ensure that all children get the education they deserve.
Great editorial.
Ted, repeating something that is wrong does not make it right. I’ll save everyone’s time by directing them here.
Are the 86% of Latino and 81% of African American Boston parents wrong to support Question 2? If they told you that you could not send your own kids to your preferred school, how would you feel?
@ THM – please provide support for the contention that we do not already have a 2 (or 3) tiered public education system in MA. How do you explain public school system’s quality being so closely linked to their location?
Wells Fargo gave the NAACP over $1 million in 2015 – does that mean we should question the NAACP? We lived in CA when the English Immersion ballot question was voted on. “Unz readily acknowledges that issues other than language contribute to poor student achievement. And he concedes that “carefully well-structured (bilingual education) programs are successful.” * At the time students were graduating CA high schools unable to fluently speak English. Unz was concerned with the high drop out rate of Hispanic students.
At the time, there was a large debate – was it low expectations, lack of resources, social-economic school segregation….. It’s the issue we are still debating.
*What Is the Real Problem?
Some point to inferior schools; Prop. 227’s author blames bilingual education
By MICHAEL BAZELEY, Mercury News Staff Writer
“A University of California task force reported to the state Legislature in 1989 that the “largest majority (more than 80 percent) of Latino students . . . are disproportionately placed in overcrowded and substandard facilities staffed by less well-trained and more often absent teachers.”
Students with limited English, skills, said the report (http://clnet.ucr.edu/challenge/), “frequently are placed in `bilingual’ programs which concentrate entirely upon English acquisition and, for as much as two years, abandon subjects such as math, writing, and science in which the students may be much more proficient in their native languages.”
Hakuta said conditions probably have not changed much since 1989.
“Bilingual education tends to be found in schools that are the least organized and with the highest concentration of poor kids,” said the Stanford professor. “These often are the schools most in need of improvement.”
Andy Dias used to be at one of those schools. When he arrived as a teacher at Cesar Chavez School in San Jose’s Alum Rock School District in 1987, the campus didn’t have a consistent approach to teaching bilingual students or a way to measure how well students were doing.
Students were in different programs every year. One year, they might be taught primarily in English; the next year, their days were filled with Spanish. The principal’s office was a revolving door, with no one staying long enough to offer stability or guidance. And teachers often did not have the appropriate Spanish-language materials.
Worst of all, students leaving Chavez were not proficient even in Spanish.
“Some administrators would hire teachers who didn’t speak any Spanish for bilingual classrooms,” said Dias, now Chavez’s bilingual coordinator. “They just didn’t understand the program.” San Jose Mercury News, Sunday, May 24, 1998
Agreed that initiatives are, as a general matter, not the best way to craft public policy. Also, I agree that voters have reason to be skeptical when major support or opposition of an initiative comes from out-of-state. But we are fortunate that the MA initiative process is perhaps the best-designed initiative process in the country. We have a major check in place — the legislature! The legislature is free to act at any time to rectify problems with the language of an initiative, or to repeal it altogether. Beacon Hill has not been shy about tinkering with or even repealing legislation produced by the Initiative Process (with the notable exception of Prop 2 ½).
Question 2 is actually quite straightforward. The statutory framework for funding, approving and regulating charters is already in place. Question 2 simply expands the current cap by up to 12 new charters per year. This increase will only affect communities where the current cap is limiting charters. In other words, it will not affect communities with strong schools. You don’t have to be a lawyer or lawmaker to understand the proposal and can read the 350-word text here. By contrast the legislative language of Question 4 (marijuana legalization) is more than 8500 words and covers 25 pages!
Question 2, like Question 4, deserves a vote on the merits of the proposal.
I attended a State House hearing where parents of charter school students testified as to why they thought the cap should be raised. All parents want the best for their children and listening to these black and Latina moms (it was almost all moms) from Boston and Chelsea and other urban areas talk about the difference charter schools are making for their kids is something I’ll never forget.
Kathy, I would rather not have the legislature handle the “check.” I think the legislature should make the decision.
Emily, were all of the speakers at the hearing telling stories about success in the charter school their child attended? Were their any speaking about their children being kicked out for missed school days, underperformance or special needs? Yes all parents want the best for their children. All parents should be heard.
I left out hearing reactions when a student’s charter school simply closes with no warning.
Actually, Question 2 can affect all communities in Mass. The question states that if the state receives more than 12 application, then the low performing schools will be given “priority”. However, if the state receives 6 applications from low performing districts and 6 from high performing districts in one year, then Question 2 allows for 12 schools to open in total. Not to mention, Question 2 has no end point – it’s 12 schools each year.
This is the actual wording from ballot question 2 as it relates to lifting the cap. The section that outlines where schools can open is in between the two sets of (( )). Please note the words “any district” in line 2:
“((relative to the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the commonwealth or in any district, the board may approve up to 12 additional commonwealth charters, commonwealth charter amendments to increase authorized enrollment, or a combination thereof per year)); provided that the total enrollment authorized by all such approvals in a single fiscal year shall not exceed 1% of the total statewide public school enrollment for such year as determined by the board; provided further, that ((in the event that the number of qualified applicants in any year exceeds 12, the board shall give priority among such qualified applicants to those seeking to establish or expand enrollment in commonwealth charter schools in districts where overall student performance on the statewide assessment system approved by the board is in the bottom 25% of all districts in the two years preceding the charter application and where the demonstrated parent demand for additional public school options is greatest));”
There is always an endpoint. Even though the government does not regulate the number of Starbucks in Newton, every storefront is not a Starbucks. Even if Question 2 allowed a million new charters a year, an end point occurs when all parents who want to send their kids to charter school are able to do. This end point seems pretty good to me–regardless of wealth, every parent can make a decision about their child’s education without being subject to the whims of a lottery.
There is a reason for initiatives and binding ballot questions. It is because politicians won’t do what the majority of voters want.
It is the essence of the democratic process. No one would bother going to trouble if the people’s voices were heard. We will see if this is what the people want.
Alison Leary wanted to know more about what I call the “incredible evidence“ of Charter School outcomes that I mentioned in an earlier blog. I am familiar with economics. Below I focus on indicative studies from the most selective econ journals. The only exception is the last journal, for which I am unfamiliar. If you watch the last two school committee meetings, it is clear from the public comments that education journals have also conducted a slew of research with similar findings. Links will direct you to free downloads of the papers. My quick summary follows each study.
Chabrier, Julia , Sarah Cohodes, and Philip Oreopoulos, 2016, What Can We Learn from Charter School Lotteries? Journal of Economic Perspectives 30, 57–84.
This paper provides large sample evidence (113 schools) and has a nice literature review. By comparing students who win and lose charter lotteries, they affirm the consensus from the literature, on average, English and math performance is significantly improved for Charter students.
Abdulkadiro, Atila, Joshua D. Angrist, Peter D. Hull, and Parag A. Pathak, 2016, Charters without Lotteries: Testing Takeovers in New Orleans and Boston, American Economic Review 106, 1878-1920. .
This paper is interesting because it departs from the lottery win-lose comparison. Rather it focuses on public schools that are reclassified as charter schools, and re-affirms the lottery evidence.
Angrist, Joshua D, Sarah R. Cohodes, Susan M. Dynarski, Parag A. Pathak, Christopher R. Walters, 2016, Stand and Deliver: Effects of Boston’s Charter High Schools on College Preparation, Entry, and Choice, Journal of Labor Economics 34, 275-318.
Some complain that charter schools “teach to the test” without improving student outcomes. This paper refutes that criticism. Charter students are shown to have higher SAT scores, they take a larger number of AP classes, their scores on AP exams is greater, and they are more likely to attend a 4 year college.
Dobbie, Will and Roland G. Fryer, Jr., 2015. The Medium-Term Impacts of High-Achieving Charter Schools, Journal of Political Economy 123, 985-1037. .
The most compelling result in this paper is chilling. I’ll quote it verbatim. “Admitted females are 10.1 percentage points less likely to be pregnant in their teens, and males are 4.4 percentage points less likely to be incarcerated.” If you question why a parent would place their kids in a charter lottery, go back and read the last sentence again.
Winters, Marcus, 2012, Measuring the effect of charter schools on public school student achievement in an urban environment: Evidence from New York City, Economics of Education Review 31, 293-301. .
I could not find a free link to the paper. Also, unlike the other journals, I can’t vouch for the quality of the journal. This paper looks at whether public school performance drops after an exodus to charter schools. Depending on how things are estimated, they find no affect, or a positive effect for which math and English scores increase in the public school.
Councilor Norton,
Firstly, good evening!
Secondly, here is a quote from the NAACP about Question 2 that you should read:
“IT IS precisely because of our grave concerns about the devastating impact on black and brown children that the NAACP is part of a broad-based statewide coalition to defeat Question 2, which would lead to unfettered charter school growth, taking billions of dollars in state aid away from local district public schools (“Charter question divides Democrats,” Metro, Aug. 16).
“The battle over this ballot question is not between teachers unions and low-income and minority families. On one side are those who believe that we must stop defunding the public schools that educate 96 percent of our students. On the other are those who support the diversion of billions of dollars of education resources to publicly funded, privately managed, selective, separate, and unequal charter schools.”
John L. Reed
Chairman
Education Committee
NAACP — New England Area Conference
West Roxbury
Jane’s point is also important: Q2 isn’t about helping under-performing districts and the families you observed at the State House. It’s about having more charter schools everywhere. It is about privatizing public education.
Shawn
I just wish those who take the position that charter schools are a problem, could explain to the parent why they shouldn’t have this choice. Explain to them, that while their child is scheduled to go to a school system which is performing well below average, and has been for years, why they shouldn’t have the option to use their tax dollars in a fashion that would benefit their child?
Their child needs to suffer for the “good” of the dysfunctional failing system?Why?
Everyone in Newton has the luxury in knowing their child will receive an adequate education in Newton. There are lots of schools systems failing children, and an alternative exists, and seems to be working. People want this, but others say no( Shawn and Jane, NAACP as examples).
Isn’t that unethical to deny those children the option?
Hallelujah, Neal Fleisher.
Shawn, like Marti and Ted, uses the acronym “NAACP” as an incantation to counteract the inconvenient will of urban parents and science. The NAACP has lost a lot of credibility. In the past week, at least three major media outlets have called the NAACP out. The Wall Street Journal has had two editorials, with yesterday’s piece calling the NAACP’s position “equivalent of opposing Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.” The New York Times called the NAACP’s position “misguided.” The Washington Post says the NAACP should “do its homework.” Sage advice.
However you feel about the NAACP, the fact is that Q2 doesn’t target under-performing districts. It does not offer a solution for those families you mention who don’t have good options for schools. Question two is about changing the way students are educated across the entire Commonwealth by building charter schools everywhere. It is a question that proposes a different educational system where the schools are privately run, where not all students are served equally, where unions are marginalized and teachers have low pay and no certification requirements. Question 2 is a poor solution for fixing troubled schools.
Shawn:Are you worried about the teachers or the kids? ( your primary concern needs to be the kids, right?)
What you are saying is just not true “It does not offer a solution for those families you mention who don’t have good options for schools.” Of course it does to at least some extent, that is why people want to open more of them. If parents didn’t like them, no one would send their kids to them.
You still don’t address the fundamental issue. Why are parents clamoring for this, if it isn’t delivering more than standard public schools?
I don’t understand the assertion that lifting the cap will lead to unlimited charter expansion everywhere. Q2 would affect only those communities that are hitting the current cap – urban communities. Those are the communities where MA charters are having the most impact and are making progress in narrowing the black-white achievement gap. The Stanford CREDO Institute study that Andy cites in his piece shows Boston charters leading the nation in every category.
This Brookings Institute report, “Massachusetts Charter Cap Holds Back Disadvantaged Students”, describes the wealth of good data on MA charters and concludes that,
Kathy,
Charter Schools are covered in General Law Chapter 71, Section 89, Subsection (i) – it states:
(i)(1) Not more than 120 charter schools shall be allowed to operate in the commonwealth at anytime
The text added would be:
SECTION 1. Subsection (i) of section 89 of chapter 71 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2014 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:—
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection (i) relative to the number of charter schools allowed to operate in the commonwealth or in any district, the board may approve up to 12 additional commonwealth charters
The text on the ballot will say:
QUESTION 2. Charter school expansion. The question, if approved, would let state education officials approve up to 12 new charter schools a year.
The only distinction is if more than 12 charter applications are acceptable, priority will be given to underperforming districts.
The major takeaway from the CREDO study is that charter schools appear to be improving but require more study. This is where the legislature comes in.
Yesterday, a Commonwealth article written by Heather C. Hill, a professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, uses current research to illustrate discrepancies between charter school students’ test scores, participation in AP exams, entrance into 4 year colleges and continuing life experience.
A study of Boston charter school students shows their scores on AP exams primarily were not adequate to gain college credit and their persistence in college “past the third semester to be indistinguishable from non-charter students.”
A study of Texas charter schools showed those students “in their mid-20s, were not more likely to be employed or to earn more than non-charter students, and students in regular charters actually earned significantly less than otherwise would be expected.”
“Given these results, and given that there have yet to be long-term studies on impacts on later-life outcomes for our state’s urban charter schools, caution is warranted.
Caution is particularly important in Massachusetts, a state with historically strong public schools and strong active reform efforts. Public schools, given the right incentives and resources, can be as effective at innovating to raise test scores as charters, as two recent studies of Massachusetts’ turnaround schools show.
Similarly, Somerville recently began a dual strategy of using student assessments to inform instruction and implementing interventions aimed at struggling students. The initiatives resulted in district student growth scores in the top 12 percentile statewide,
and a high school that ranks in the 97th percentile. An increase of 30 percent in district spending permitted these improvement efforts.
But Question 2 would create major financial burdens for Somerville and other districts for many years to come. For each new charter school that opens, a neighborhood school must close, a process that has proven excruciating in other parts of the . Many cities will experience annual deficits (see this simulation) and no predictability in planning, which in turn prevents long-term improvement efforts.
Considering these uncertain benefits and certain risks, I urge voters to vote no on Question 2.”
From Professor Hill’s CV, she appears to have neither published a paper on charter schools nor ever published in an economics journal. She is not talking about her research, she is interpreting selective results from the “Stand and Deliver” paper–I provided you a link to the entire paper above. My advice is to read it yourself. If I compare what you say Professor Hill says to the actual paper, there is a disconnect from reality. For example, Charter School Students earn 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s in AP tests at well over twice the frequency as non-charter school students. Even though the 4 and 5 bump is about the same as the 3 bump, the increase is not statistically significant. Our best guess of the 4 and 5 scores is still double–not zero. If your child could go to charter school and have over the twice the probability of earning a 3, and twice the probability earning a 4 or 5, wouldn’t you go the charter school route.
Neal – there are parents advocating on both sides of the issue. Parents are for and against question 2, including in areas with under-performing schools. At present, over 165 school committees in Massachusetts have come out against question 2. It is highly likely most of those SC members are parents of kids in public schools. Members of the very large coalition of organizations opposing this question can be seen here:
https://saveourpublicschoolsma.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/EndorsersList10.12.pdf
I left off the links to the studies themselves and to the article.
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/education/dont-gamble-with-massachusetts-students-future/
http://eml.berkeley.edu/~crwalters/papers/LTO.pdf
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf
It was from reading othese two studies above, Berkeley’s research on outcomes of students from Boston charter schools’ and Princeton’s on the long term outcomes of students from Texas charter schools that I wrote the beginning of my post.
The conclusion of the author was after that. She summarized the results of the two studies and spoke of their value in determining the long term effects that charter schools have for students. Students from charter schools who went to a four year college had the same retention rate after the third semester and had no different employment data than students from non-charter schools. Certainly seems relavent to me.
It also includes studies of Massachusetts public schools turned around when more resources are available.
https://appam.confex.com/appam/2015/webprogram/Paper14077.html “The Effects of School Turnaround Strategies in Massachusetts” and http://www.nber.org/papers/w21895 “Can States Take Over and Turn Around School Districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts” as well as evidence from Somerville.
The simulation spoken of http://jcalz.github.io/schoolmodel/?district_code=%2200010000%22&maximum_class_size=32&funding_per_student=11944&teacher_salary=92662&initial_number_of_students_in_district=1403&number_of_schools_in_district=4&charter_draw_per_year=50&state_reimbursement_percentage=0.59 shows annual district deficits.
Another editorial that demystified lies and scare tactics – http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/10/29/vote-yes-question/4GhhmBk6IpCDWGg8NehwFJ/story.html?s_campaign=bdc:globewell:opinion
Lets keep a score of politicians who blindly followed their party instead of looking at the data and forming independent opinions. I sincerely hope they take a different approach when running our city, schools or writing the charter.
#Disappointing!!