Hey, there! Log in / Register
Why does a charter-school principal sit on the Boston School Committee?
By adamg on Tue, 05/28/2013 - 10:26am
Some questions about charter schools in general and Meg Campbell's Codman Charter in particular.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Delusional
This seems delusional. Does any teacher think that the kids in Boston and the kids in Lexington come in with the same level of preparation and have the same level of support at home?
Delusional and dangerous
So the way to fix the BPS is to get rid of exam schools? I don't think so.
Also, ignorant.
Wellesley district 2012, subgroups not meeting PPI (which replaced AYP):
High needs
Low Income
ELL
Students w/disabilities
Black
Hispanic
http://www.wellesley.k12.ma.us/schoolcom/pdfs/SC20...
"These communities don’t separate students"
Oh yes, they do. Their parents say, "Gee, I want my child to have (AP, IB, certain extracurricular)" and move into a community offers that. Instead of parents making the decisions by charter lottery, they make the decision via a real estate purchase.
Not everyone can afford to buy a house in a tony suburb, so they apply to charters instead.
Why do charter schools and
Why do charter schools and traditional schools have to hate each other? It might make sense to have some cross-sharing of board members.
In an ideal world, sure ...
And that's probably why Menino put her on the committee after announcing a truce between BPS and local charter schools.
But it's not a level playing field - charter schools in general look good in comparison to public schools ("in general" because charter schools sometimes have their own issues) in part because they don't have to take all those pesky ESL and disability kids that the non-charter schools do - and because they're free to suspend trouble students right back to BPS. In the meantime, they are intent on growing - at the expense of traditional public schools.
During a round of school closings a few years ago, Johnson and John McDonough talked about turning BPS into the equivalent of a business with competitors - and how they would have to improve their product or, basically, die.
There are ways the two systems can cooperate short of having a charter official helping to decide policy for BPS, especially when she has a potential conflict of interest. Granted, given that the current School Committee operates mostly as a rubber stamp for the superintendent and the mayor, it may not really matter who sits on the School Committee, but it sets a bad precedent for the future.
Not a level playing field?
Not a level playing field? This from a parent of a student at Boston Latin?
Oh, you bet
Just because I have a kid at Latin doesn't mean I don't recognize the deficiencies in the rest of the system.
For that matter, though, you might want to take a look at the amount of school resources the school gets in comparison with other schools in the system - BPS is not pouring tons of extra money into BLS at the expense of the rest of the high schools (or any extra money, really).
In any case, BLS is open to all Boston students who qualify, regardless of whether they came up through BPS schools, charters or Holy Name.
In fact, BLS has the largest
In fact, BLS has the largest classroom size and lowest per student budget in the BPS system. Why is it so successful? In a nutshell- motivated students and families of all socioeconomic groups and relatively few disruptive, disciplinary problems. Teachers can teach and students can learn.
"...they don't have to take
"...they don't have to take all those pesky ESL and disability kids that the non-charter schools do..."
Is that correct? It's my third year teaching at a charter school in Boston and I've taught an awful lot of kids classified as SpEd and ELL. I don't know the law, but my understanding is we take anyone who wins a spot in the lottery, regardless of SpEd/ELL status.
As for the "free to suspend trouble students right back to BPS", I'm not saying it doesn't happen anywhere, but I can also say that's not what I've seen. To put it mildly.
Not trying to start a charter vs. traditional public schools firefight, but I did want to gently clear my throat.
-PBS
No
This is a common refrain of anti-charter folks. It's made up out of whole cloth, much like the rest of the complaints in this article. A school caught pulling a stunt like that would have its charter revoked.
Charter school populations
As worded, the argument is false - charter schools are required to accept any student who wins a spot through an open lottery. As you say, any school that violates that agreement should and would lose its charter.
Still, charter schools do end up with student populations that are drastically different from the public schools'. For example, when I look at the Roslindale Brooke School's population and compare it to the BPS population, I can't help but notice that while they educate similar numbers of low income students, the ELL and LEP numbers are astonishingly different. 30.7% of BPS students are classified as limited English proficient, vs. 0.4% of students at the Brooke!
I don't know enough about the Brooke to fully explain this difference. But one thing that I'll suggest is that, while charter schools are required to accept any student who wins their lottery, there is no enforceable requirement that they provide a curriculum or environment that appeals equally to all families.
Now, the recent study done at Stanford suggests that among students who do wish to attend charter schools, those charter schools generally do seem to provide some benefit. On the other hand, is it such a surprise to notice that that same study suggests that English Language Learners fare worse at charter schools than at traditional public schools? Perhaps the parents of ELL students who are opting not to enter charter school lotteries are doing so with good reason.
What I see when I look at the data is that charter schools seem to encourage self-selection by the population that they serve the best. Because that population is traditionally underserved - from what I've seen, charter schools in Boston generally enroll low income minority students - I don't think it's fair to come down as completely anti-charter. At the same time, I don't see how it's useful to compare traditional schools, which spread their funding across services intended for a diverse population, with charters, who have demonstrably more homogeneous students. I also worry about promoting charters as a broad solution to the city's education problems without having a lot of evidence that they can adequately educate our entire population, and that by lifting the charter cap we're just encouraging a new form of segregation.
charters typically have more
charters typically have more involved parents than the regular public schools. these kids already get support at home so they're more likely to succeed regardless. The reason parents place their kids in charters is because they want to control who their peers are.
the problem is that now in some schools teachers are increasingly stuck with higher numbers of kids whose parents don't really give a shit - which makes their job much more difficult. how do you get a kid to do their homework when their parent won't even sign a report card? Either we support the parents too or BPS should somehow be responsible for these kids 24/7.
The real reason people get upset over charters is because all they do is shift focus away from the real issues facing kids in high-poverty districts - it's not about quality of teaching and this myth of the lazy union teacher - it's about the corrosive effects of poverty.
Not accurate
The Brooke has a waiting list which barely moves at all in spite of the huge numbers of applicants for each seat. If kids were constantly being suspended and expelled, it would be easier to get into the school.
Maybe you shouldn't get too many facts from Edushyster.
"92 percent of our Boston
"92 percent of our Boston Public School teachers can be rated proficient or exemplary"
The entire article avoids answering that question. Notice that the writer never bothers to argue the facts. Regarding suspensions, the question is, should there be any schools in the entire system free of kids that drag down the education of others, or should they be spread out throughout the entire system, making sure that all schools are equally harmed? Take your pick.
Agreed
This is the part of the anti- charter movement I understand the least - we have thousands of kids who are thriving and learning in charters and the response is "you are taking away the good kids to make us look bad". That may be the result - but it's not the intent and quite honestly, I don't give a hoot as long as those kids are doing better than they would be doing in BPS - which a Boston Foundation study seemed to indicate.
That said the funding issue does seem valid on some respects but keep in mind that charters typically have to rent their own real estate and to the best of my knowledge don't get any kind of funding for retirement bennies like health care and pensions (my guess is most have a defined contribution plan?). Many charters have to raise money privately to fund this part of their budget.
The "Commonwealth Charters" may be operated a little differently, but in the overall scheme of the pie - it's a small discrepancy.
The other question unasked is "will more money fix the problem?" In my opinion, until we get longer school days and longer school years, the answer is no - and given that BPS teachers already spend less time in the classroom than almost any teacher in the country and enjoy one of the most generous pay packages in our fine country - I have a hard time with their demand that we should pay them more to agree to more time in the classroom and I can't imagine where that money would come from.
the key is parental
the key is parental involvement - "good kids" is code for involved parents - "bad kids" is code for parents who could care less. "involved" parents send their kids to charters because they know those other parents don't have their shit together to do the same... if you've ever been in a class with a highly disruptive classmate you know that no learning is really happening regardless how excellent the teacher is. Parents will do anything they can to make sure their kid won't be in the same room with the bad kids. This is why only the charters in minority and high-poverty districts perform better - factor out the most severe trouble makers and everyone else does better.
ironically, charters in largely white and middle class districts tend to perform worse than their counterparts (because of lower standards for teachers' credentials) - IMHO - this is evidence that certain students can drag down class performance so far that it makes it appear that even highly qualified and experienced teachers aren't doing a good job.
Advocating for Boston, not the country
I'm looking just at Boston where most of the kids are from impoverished homes - especially those in charters. All I care about is the system works here and for now, with waiting lists as long as they are - we need more of them.