Already the subject of much consternation in the blogosphere, this report investigates the current state of charter school demographics and chastises the charter movement for the proliferation of racially-isolated schools.
Already the subject of much consternation in the blogosphere, this report investigates the current state of charter school demographics and chastises the charter movement for the proliferation of racially-isolated schools. Looking at charters in forty states and a few dozen metropolitan areas, the authors find that they are almost universally more segregated than traditional district schools, particularly for black students. Combine that with mixed reviews of charters’ academic effectiveness, and you will not be surprised that Gary Orfield writes in the foreword that magnet schools are a superior option. To say that charter advocates disagree is a massive understatement. Many question the premise of the report (that racial isolation is necessarily a bad thing), laud charters for targeting the nation’s most disadvantaged students, and praise the best of them (e.g., KIPP and Achievement First) for doing the job magnificently. Some also fault the study’s methodology for comparing charter demographics to those of entire school districts rather than neighborhood public schools down the block. You can read the report here.
Erica Frankenberg, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and Jia Wang
The Civil Rights Project
January 2010
Building on previous work of The New Teacher Project, data from the National Council for Teacher Quality, and other research, this overview of teacher tenure policies asserts that the tenure bar is set too low, that student achievement has nothing much to do with tenure decisions, and that the political resistance to reform in this realm is potent. Author McGuinn offers a handful of solutions, for the most part focusing on the power of the federal purse. He would leverage Washington’s education dollars to prod states to make tough policy changes: Tie student achievement to teacher evaluations (as Race to the Top is already doing), eliminate tenure at the state level, or at least free district hands from tenure restrictions. He also reminds states and districts that other avenues are already open to them, such as revamping teacher licensing and re-licensing procedures, and taking advantage of loopholes in current union contracts. He’s optimistic that the conversation about teacher tenure has turned in a positive direction. We’re more cautious. But if you want a comprehensive overview of teacher tenure to date, you would do well to start here.
Patrick McGuinn, Drew University and Institute for Advanced Study
Center for American Progress
February 2010
This collection of papers and “toolkits” is meant to help districts and charter management organizations navigate through some of the most complicated issues facing school systems. These papers distill “best practices” from 10 urban districts and are supposed to serve as set of guidebooks that school leaders can adapt to fit their particular needs. The latest addresses the expansion of access to Advanced Placement courses. How can a school identify earlier qualified students, better train qualified staff, and help overcome financial barriers for students? Another takes up the logistics of school closures, from sample budgetary timelines to responsible reassignment of students and staff. These kits eschew ideology and rhetoric for common sense approaches to some tough organizational challenges, and may be worth the attention of your eyeballs. Check ‘em out here.
The Broad Foundation
2009
This book recounts the author's experiences in the for-profit education industry. It starts out at the Harvard Kennedy School, winds its way through New American Schools and the Edison Project, and ends with Sandler’s development of an education consulting firm named EduVentures. The narrative poses some genuinely significant questions about the intersection of education and business: Is it possible for private firms to serve both their shareholders and their pupils equally? Do profit-seeking education entrepreneurs warrant special moral status? What are the benefits and limits of business in education, and how do politics delineate or obscure the line between the public and the private? Unfortunately, the book is better at posing such dilemmas than at resolving them. Sandler tends to glorify the entrepreneurs, even those whose businesses failed and whose education efforts yielded little learning. Despite informative tales of companies like Kaplan, University of Phoenix, and EduVentures itself, the reader may emerge with little grasp of what makes the for-profit education industry more "social" or "public" than any other sector of the economy. You can purchase a copy here.
Michael Sandler
Rowman & Littlefield Education
January 2010
It’s hard not to get the sense right now that the Democrats are in free fall. Evan Bayh’s retirement is like a major aftershock to the earthquake that was Scott Brown’s election. Now there’s talk about the GOP taking over both houses of Congress in the fall, even of a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012.
To be sure, lots could change in a month, let alone by November, and we might be talking about an Obama-led Democratic resurgence. If unemployment falls, Americans’ optimism rises, and Republicans start sounding like extremists again, this situation could flip once more. That said, this tumultuous political environment is bound to affect every big bold idea coming out of the Obama Administration, from health care, to financial regulation, to cap-and-trade, and more. And the No Child Left Behind reauthorization won’t be immune.
At a time when the Tea Party, anti-big-government, pro-Sarah Palin types have the momentum, it’s hard to imagine Congress embracing another Washington-knows-best, let’s-fix-our-schools-from-the-shores-of-the-Potomac approach to ESEA like it did with NCLB (or like last year’s stimulus). It’s also easy to picture conservative politicians demagoguing the “national testing issue,” as Texas Governor Rick Perry has been doing so effectively.
It’s often noted that NCLB was enacted only after 9/11 and the anthrax scare, with both parties in Congress wanting to show the world that America could still get important things done. But that’s not all; the energy behind NCLB also came from the late 1990s, when peace and prosperity reigned and confidence in government was higher than it is today. (Remember that George W. Bush was positioning himself as “a different kind of Republican”--i.e., not a slash-and-burn Gingrich type.) Those conditions have changed; reformers who think the Congress--or the public--is in the mood for anything as audacious as NCLB just aren’t paying attention.
Arne Duncan often talks about “transforming” our education system, but don’t be surprised if his rhetoric gets a lot more measured in the months to come. And if there is to be action in the Congress on education this year, expect it to be piecemeal and step-by-step--which might not be such a bad thing after all.
A version of this article first ran as a post on Fordham’s Flypaper blog. Subscribe to the Flypaper RSS feed today!
Moving to Michigan? You might want to check out the website BestSchoolsinMichigan.com to pick a promising school district--or you might not. The nine districts featured on that site, and highlighted in a special half-hour TV segment recently aired in the Detroit area, paid $25,000 each for the honor. They claim they were just engaging in smart marketing with a little help from the public relations firm Sussman Sikes. Instead, this has turned into a PR disaster. In related news, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has been named the Most Influential Think Tank in the Galaxy. Please contact Sussman Sikes for more information.
"Lincoln pays $25,000 to be named on of the top schools districts in Michigan," by David Jesse, AnnArbor.com, February 4, 2010
Did you know that a group of fifteen people basically control your child’s curricula? No, this isn’t another secret Department of Education panel, but the Texas state board of education, which has the final say over the Lone Star State’s academic standards--the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, or TEKS. We’ve long known that a handful of big states control textbooks and their publishers--and that the decisions made by those states reverberate in others who purchase the same texts. Which makes the current debates over the social studies curriculum that much more disturbing. A seven-person self-identified “Christian right” voting bloc on the state board is bent on ensuring that children learn that America is a “Christian nation” and that the founders thought in distinctly biblical terms. They’re quick to ignore or overrule the recommendations of teacher panels that draft the standards and the testimony of experts in a variety of fields. And their power is something unique. Prentice Hall, which publishes the ubiquitous Magruder’s American Government, which at one point controlled 60-65 percent of the national market for twelfth grade U.S. history texts, changed its signature “living Constitution” to “enduring Constitution” in response to Texas board pressure. Last fall, when the board didn’t get reading lists from the writing teams that emphasized stories with strong moral lessons, they did an end-run-around and met with publishers directly. The lists were changed in accordance with the board’s wishes. The mad, mad world of textbook adoption might have just gotten a little madder.
“How Christian Were the Founders?,” by Russell Shorto, New York Times Magazine, February 11, 2010
Houston Superintendent Terry Grier’s plan to link value-added student test scores to teacher evaluation and dismissal decisions drew attention when he proposed it early this year. Now, the school board has unanimously agreed. Starting next year, teachers in core subjects in grades three through eight will have their evaluations based in part on the same value-added data system that has been informing HISD’s merit pay program (but nothing else) for the last three years. If they’re not up to snuff, teachers may lose their jobs; about 3 percent of the district’s 13,000 teachers are at risk for failing to advance student achievement multiple years in a row. Grier made a name for himself with a flexible union contract as supe in Guilford County, NC; is the overhaul of teacher evaluations his next crusade? We hope so.
“HISD passes teacher dismissal plan,” by Ericka Mellon, Houston Chronicle, February 12, 2010
Ask Americans if they support “public schools,” and you will get a resounding “yes.” At the heart of our abiding commitment to the idea of public education is Horace Mann’s ideal of the “common school”: a place whose doors are open to everybody, and where all children, regardless of social class, race or ethnic heritage, can come to learn and play and grow up together. This is a genuinely compelling vision.
Not surprisingly, opponents of charter schools and school choice cleverly tap into this romantic notion of public schooling when arguing that taxpayer dollars shouldn’t support schools that are “exclusive” or “privatized” or “balkanized” or guilty of “creaming.”
But let’s turn the tables: just how “public” are America’s public schools?
In a new Fordham analysis, America’s Private Public Schools, we identify more than 2,800 public schools nationwide whose doors are effectively barred to poor children. These schools serve about four percent of the U.S. public-school population--considerably more than charter schools do. Generally found in wealthy urban enclaves or well-heeled suburbs, they educate children of America’s elite in exclusive settings while proudly waving the “public school” flag. Yet they hardly embody the “common school” ideal.
In fact, by serving only well-off children, they are arguably more private--certainly more exclusive--than many elite private schools, which, after all, generally offer at least some scholarships to low-income students. And they are certainly more exclusive than most charter schools, which typically serve more than their share of poor and minority children.
These “private public schools” do not arise by accident. In a country where more than 40 percent of K-12 pupils are poor enough to qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch from the federal government, it is not exactly random when a school serves few or none of those kids. That is not to say that these schools openly refuse to educate needy girls and boys. But their demographics generally are products of public policies and community decisions. Some schools are located in areas once ruled by neighborhood covenants that kept minorities out. Many more are in communities where zoning restrictions block affordable housing. And precious few opt to participate in public school choice programs that assist poor children to cross school (or even district) boundaries to take advantage of what they have to offer. On the contrary, some are located in districts that hire “border guards” to ensure that only those who pay property taxes there are permitted to enter their schools.
These schools are “public” in that they are funded by taxpayers and accountable to elected officials. But they scarcely serve the larger “public” of American society. If a child’s parents cannot afford a home in their attendance zones, that child simply cannot attend them. Call us naïve if you wish, but we find it hypocritical (or worse) when someone supports spending taxpayer dollars on such “public” schools for their own kids but opposed school-choice options for other people’s children. Feels to us like a double standard--and just plain unfair.
To find these “private public schools,” we dove into the federal government’s Common Core of Data for 2007-2008. At the elementary level, we defined “private public schools” as those where low-income students (i.e., those eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch) make up less than 5 percent of the pupil population. Because these data are less reliable at the middle and high school levels (where many self-conscious adolescents choose not to participate in the program), we used an even tougher threshold for those schools: to qualify, fewer than 3 percent of their students were reported to be poor. We were also sensitive to the fact that a non-trivial number of schools themselves choose not to participate in the federal free-lunch program, and thus do not provide reliable data on the number of eligible youngsters attending them. So we excluded these schools from our calculations.
So what did we find? As of 2007-2008, there were at least 2,817 “private public schools” (i.e., schools that serve virtually no poor students). This includes 2,194 elementary, 304 middle, and 319 high schools. Altogether, these schools serve approximately 1.7 million students. Had we been less persnickety with our criteria, there’d have been many more.
Perhaps not surprisingly, few black students attend these schools. While 17 percent of public school pupils nationwide are African-American, just 3 percent of the students in “private public schools” are. Furthermore, the percentage of Hispanic students in these schools (12 percent) is just half that of public schools as a whole.
These national findings mask large differences among states. While 4 percent of public school pupils nationally attend “private public schools,” in a handful of states the proportion is much greater: Connecticut (18 percent), New Jersey (17 percent), South Dakota (16 percent), Arizona (14 percent), and Massachusetts (12 percent). A comparison of major metropolitan areas reveals even starker disparities. The Boston and New York City metropolitan areas top the list with the greatest proportions of public school students attending “private public schools” (16 and 13 percent, respectively). And an astonishing 27 percent of white students in the New York City metro area, 21 percent of white students in the San Francisco metro area, and 20 percent of white students in the Boston metro area attend these exclusive public schools.
We suspect that many white parents in these “progressive” communities voice opposition to school voucher or tax credit programs because they object to public funds supporting “exclusive” private schools. Would these same folks oppose public funding for America’s 2,800 “private public schools”—funding that runs in the tens of billions of dollars?
Consider this: When Ohio enacted a school voucher program in Cleveland in the 1990s, it explicitly allowed low-income students to use their scholarships at suburban public schools as well as private and religious ones. Yet not a single district bordering Cleveland would allow these poor (mostly black) students to enroll in their schools, though scores of Catholic schools and other private schools did.
So which schools are public, and which are private? Which come closer to Horace Mann’s ideal of the common school? From the point of view of the “public” that our schools are meant to serve, it is not a difficult question.
This collection of papers and “toolkits” is meant to help districts and charter management organizations navigate through some of the most complicated issues facing school systems. These papers distill “best practices” from 10 urban districts and are supposed to serve as set of guidebooks that school leaders can adapt to fit their particular needs. The latest addresses the expansion of access to Advanced Placement courses. How can a school identify earlier qualified students, better train qualified staff, and help overcome financial barriers for students? Another takes up the logistics of school closures, from sample budgetary timelines to responsible reassignment of students and staff. These kits eschew ideology and rhetoric for common sense approaches to some tough organizational challenges, and may be worth the attention of your eyeballs. Check ‘em out here.
The Broad Foundation
2009
Already the subject of much consternation in the blogosphere, this report investigates the current state of charter school demographics and chastises the charter movement for the proliferation of racially-isolated schools. Looking at charters in forty states and a few dozen metropolitan areas, the authors find that they are almost universally more segregated than traditional district schools, particularly for black students. Combine that with mixed reviews of charters’ academic effectiveness, and you will not be surprised that Gary Orfield writes in the foreword that magnet schools are a superior option. To say that charter advocates disagree is a massive understatement. Many question the premise of the report (that racial isolation is necessarily a bad thing), laud charters for targeting the nation’s most disadvantaged students, and praise the best of them (e.g., KIPP and Achievement First) for doing the job magnificently. Some also fault the study’s methodology for comparing charter demographics to those of entire school districts rather than neighborhood public schools down the block. You can read the report here.
Erica Frankenberg, Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, and Jia Wang
The Civil Rights Project
January 2010
This book recounts the author's experiences in the for-profit education industry. It starts out at the Harvard Kennedy School, winds its way through New American Schools and the Edison Project, and ends with Sandler’s development of an education consulting firm named EduVentures. The narrative poses some genuinely significant questions about the intersection of education and business: Is it possible for private firms to serve both their shareholders and their pupils equally? Do profit-seeking education entrepreneurs warrant special moral status? What are the benefits and limits of business in education, and how do politics delineate or obscure the line between the public and the private? Unfortunately, the book is better at posing such dilemmas than at resolving them. Sandler tends to glorify the entrepreneurs, even those whose businesses failed and whose education efforts yielded little learning. Despite informative tales of companies like Kaplan, University of Phoenix, and EduVentures itself, the reader may emerge with little grasp of what makes the for-profit education industry more "social" or "public" than any other sector of the economy. You can purchase a copy here.
Michael Sandler
Rowman & Littlefield Education
January 2010
Building on previous work of The New Teacher Project, data from the National Council for Teacher Quality, and other research, this overview of teacher tenure policies asserts that the tenure bar is set too low, that student achievement has nothing much to do with tenure decisions, and that the political resistance to reform in this realm is potent. Author McGuinn offers a handful of solutions, for the most part focusing on the power of the federal purse. He would leverage Washington’s education dollars to prod states to make tough policy changes: Tie student achievement to teacher evaluations (as Race to the Top is already doing), eliminate tenure at the state level, or at least free district hands from tenure restrictions. He also reminds states and districts that other avenues are already open to them, such as revamping teacher licensing and re-licensing procedures, and taking advantage of loopholes in current union contracts. He’s optimistic that the conversation about teacher tenure has turned in a positive direction. We’re more cautious. But if you want a comprehensive overview of teacher tenure to date, you would do well to start here.
Patrick McGuinn, Drew University and Institute for Advanced Study
Center for American Progress
February 2010
