“The charter school movement is in trouble.” So begins an article in the Washington Post. I think that’s an exaggeration. Charter schools aren’t in trouble as such — their numbers are still on the rise — but they may be cresting. Their once-shiny reputation is tarnishing. Charter proponents’ mouths have made too many promises the schools can’t keep, and people are beginning to take notice.
Some folks who have read my charter-related posts think I’m opposed to charter schools. Not so. I support any school — district, charter or private — with good teachers, a good curriculum and a strong overall educational philosophy. Plenty of charters fit that description. I would have no problem recommending a charter school to parents if I thought it was a good fit for their children.
What I’m against is the charter school PR machine, part of the ridiculously well funded “education reform”/privatization movement. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent every year demonizing public education while praising charters as the answer to our educational prayers, then propping up the schools with funding above and beyond what they get from the state.
District schools deserve criticism, but not the “failing schools” slam they get from privatizers, and charters hardly deserve the lavish praise they receive from their financial patrons. That’s why I go heavy on charter criticism. With all the money and effort perpetuating the myth of charter school superiority, I feel it’s my duty to debunk their myth-making whenever I can.
The first charters began in the early nineties. Arizona’s charters opened for business in 1995. The schools have had nearly 30 years to prove their worth. Yet when you look at legitimate studies comparing charters and district schools, the results are pretty much a wash. In one state, charter school students have better scores than similar students in district schools. In another state it’s the district schools that have the edge. Charter students may have higher test scores in fourth grade math while district schools top charters in eighth grade English, or vice versa.
People on both sides of the argument can cherry-pick the data to fit their narrative, but when you look at the numbers as a whole, the differences in student achievement are so slight as to be insignificant. If parents choose well, they can send their children to excellent charter schools, but if they fall prey to false advertising, they might end up sending their children to some of the worst schools you’ll find anywhere.
Hundreds of millions of dollars a year have been very successful at overselling charter schools as a superior alternative to district schools. Now, after almost three decades, the movement is starting to fall victim to its own hype. If you keep insisting charter schools are far better than the district alternative, eventually you have to make good on your promises.
As the author of the Washington Post article notes, charter school school enrollment continues to grow. Here in Arizona, charters have added 10,000 students a year over the past decade. But the nationwide growth has slowed, and skepticism has increased. Cities like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles are putting breaks on charter school expansion. The results of New Orleans’ grand experiment after Hurricane Katrina when they converted most the school system to charters have been so mixed, other cities are wary of following a similar path.
One of the PR machine’s biggest selling points for charters has been the claim that they rescue African American children from “failing schools.” The NAACP is no longer buying it. Seeing the number of poorly run charters in African American neighborhoods, which are allowed to stay in business because of lax state oversight and an absence of sensible regulation, the NAACP has called for a moratorium on all new charter schools until current problems are dealt with.
Even here in Arizona, the governor and the legislature have been forced to consider increasing oversight and regulation of charters because of disturbing signs of corruption and profiteering riddling some schools’ management.
The public’s assessment of charters has been slipping lately, especially among Democrats, whose support of charters has lowered significantly over the past few years. The change is reflected in the recent batch of Democratic presidential hopefuls. While the Obama administration promoted charter schools, it’s hard to find full-throated support of charters from any of this year’s candidates.
Republicans, meanwhile, still favor charters by a wide margin. Like so many other issues in our polarized society, charters have taken a partisan turn, which doesn’t bode well for the future of the charter school movement.
In the short term, the future of charters will depend on the outcome of the presidential election. A continuation of the Trump/DeVos educational policy will breathe life into the charter movement. A Democratic presidency is likely to slow its growth or even lead to a decline.
This article appears in May 30 – Jun 5, 2019.
Between 15 and 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to read a hard-copy charter for a Charter School in Cochise County, Southern Arizona. There were at that time two (2) Charter Schools either operating or proposed to be operating in our immediate area. Both Charter writers were former employees in the close by public school district.
The Charter writers approach was to: (a) discredit, vilify and/or trash in detail the performance of the local Public School District, while (b) simultaneously poaching teachers and support workers to staff their Charter Schools.
Since these Charters were written, accepted and operationalized, one of the Charter Schools went under after a limited run of years, and the second is still operating with the following reported for 2018-19:
Overall School Rank: Bottom 50% in AZ
Math Proficiency: 21-39% (Bottom 50%)
Reading Proficiency: 21-39% (Bottom 50%)
Meanwhile, the local Public School was rated best in the state a couple years ago, still expands, and improves with solid community support.
Washington Post?
Lets compare Arizona spending and 8th grade math scores with Connecticut and a few orther states WaPo has highlighted over the last two years.
_____________________Arizona____Kentucky___Connecticut_____West Virginia_____Maryland_______Oregon
Jobs
Created
Since 1999__________670,000____130,000_______-14,000________14,000_________280,000 _______334,000
Spending
per student___________$8,213____$10,694______$18,616________$12,613_______ $14,859_________$12,272
Charter
School
Students______________185,000_______0 ________10,000 __________0___________ 24,000___________31,500
8th Grade Math
Scores by
Demographic
Black _________________272 ________252_________ 258 __________254 ____________262_______________NA
Hispanic _______________269________269 _________263 ___________NA ____________267______________266
White _________________296 ________282 _________295 __________274_____________295______________288
Asian _________________316 ________303 _________311___________ NA ____________316______________305
Math Scores
by
Mothers
education
High school dropout ______265 _________262 _________262 _________259 __________259 ______________263
High school graduate _____269 _________265 _________263 _________262 _________262_______________265
Some college ___________285 _________283 _________280 _________274 _________275________________283
College graduate ________296 _________288 _________295 _________282 _________295_______________297
The source of the spending numbers is the National Education Association Rankings and Estimates for 2017-18. The job numbers come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The test scores are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress for 2017.
As you can see, we best these other states who are spending the equivalent of billions per year more than us in every single category.
If NAEP were to separate Hispanic scores into two categories, Native born and foreign born, we would rank in the top ten in both categories. It’s only because they are comparing our foriegn born Hispanics against native born Hispanic in other states that we rank lower in that category.
Sadly, *like so many other issues in our polarized society,* public school advocacy -*has taken a partisan turn, which doesnt bode well for the future of* the SAVE OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS movement. Many of our citizens in Tucson want nothing to do with so-called *PUBLIC* schools run by your political network, David. Take a look at your bar graphs on TUSD enrollment next time you feel like prognosticating. The trend lines are clear. Public schools will survive in enclave communities where parents are able to be active and vigilant enough to do the necessary advocacy and quality control. Elsewhere, refugees from political machine-infested public districts will keep the charters in business.
David,
Here is the fundamental problem with WaPo’s story.
As Arizona illustrates, the big gains from school choice don’t happen just because a student moves from a low gain district school to a high gain charter school.
They happen because school choice creates fear. Fear that students will walk out the door along with their money.
They happen because school choice creates pride. Pride that 10,000 or 50,000 students and their 100,000 parents chose you and not someone else.
Fear and pride motivate. Motivate you to be sure you are prepared and organized for class tomorrow. Motivate you to deal with difficult behavior problems today before they become impossible problems tomorrow.
Terrance Scott’s work in Kentucky shows that the typical classroom in the typical hour in America operates in the failure zone. Exhausted and inadequately supported teachers arrive at class unprepared for success.
The Gates Foundation Measures of Effective Teachers showed the exact same thing. Thousands of hours of video.
The classrooms and schools of unsupported teachers are steadily emptying out in Arizona. A steady migration to better choices.
Pity we can’t get good research from our Education Colleges. Pathetic response by them. We are running the premier education experiment in the world and can’t get answers to basic questions.
1. What is teacher job satisfaction? How does it compare with Connecticut?
2. What are academic gains in Arizona compared to Massachusetts? Reardon’s Stanford ranking study shows us scorching Massachusetts. Chingos’ Urban Institute ranking shows us slightly behind them. Why the difference?
3. Why are the 5 year academic gain numbers and rankings so much different than the one and two year numbers? Does it mean that our entire accountability system is one gigantic fiction?