Earlier this month, the Institute of Education Sciences released a major charter school study, the largest ever to use the ?gold standard? methodology of randomly assigning students to treatment and control schools. The main findings of the study?that results were mixed, with neither charters nor traditional public schools with any clear advantage?got drowned out by other news of the day.
Are we more willing to excuse lackluster test scores at middle class charter schools?
But an important caveat also got mostly overlooked: charters serving lots of poor or low-performing kids made a significant positive impact on math achievement, while ?middle class? charter schools had a negative effect on both math and reading. You could joke that this is evidence that charters are closing the achievement gap: they are helping low-performing poor kids make gains and affluent kids lose ground.
So what's going on? If you know a little bit about the charter school movement, these findings make a ton of sense. While the media mostly pay attention to inner-city charter schools?think KIPP, Achievement First, Harlem Success, etc.?several of the early-adopter states (like Minnesota, California, and Colorado) are also home to suburban charter schools. And many of those schools were created by progressive educators or parents as an alternative to the traditional public schools nearby. Schools like Minnesota New Country School, whose mission is to ?explore the world through project-based learning.?
As far as I can tell, lots of these uber-progressive schools are quite good, and achieve excellent results in terms of student success in college and beyond. There's a strong argument to be made?and Education Evolving makes it here?that there should be room within public education for these kinds of schools and their innovative approaches. But these institutions sure aren't focused on getting kids ready to pass the state standardized test. So, compared to their traditional school counterparts, their test scores suffer.
And I'm not terribly bothered by that. It's not like their students are learning nothing; they just aren't making the same gains as their pen-and-paper-and-textbook peers.
Yet I must admit to a double standard. Show me a high-poverty charter school serving lots of poor and minority kids, and if its test scores don't match the neighboring public school I'd say ?shut it down!? Sure, it might be safer than the alternative, or more engaging, or better at developing a sense of belonging, or strong values, or well-being. But if its kids are learning less math and reading than the crappy public school down the street? Lock the doors!
I don't think I'm alone. But why are we more willing to overlook lackluster test scores in middle class schools? Does this double standard end up hurting poor kids, who are forced into ?testing factories? while their middle class counterparts get to ?learn while doing?? Or is this a pragmatic approach to a basic fact: if poor kids don't get a solid basic education they are likely to be condemned to low-wage work, while the middle class kids will probably do fine regardless of what happens in school.
-Mike Petrilli
