Do charter schools work? A new study of Boston schools says yes.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2013/05/do_charter_schools_work_a_new_study_of_boston_schools_says_yes.single.html

by jseliger • 13 years ago

27 71 13 years ago

slate.com

btilly6• 13 years ago

Are there other possible confounding factors?

They picked 6 schools that were known to have done well by other measures, and then analyzed a new statistic over the same time period. But the fact that they had done well by other measures could be explained if they had been lucky in the students they got in the lottery, which would also explain their doing well by a new measure.

The simplest way to solve this is to select schools by how well they did with one cohort, and analyze them by how well they do with another. For instance you can select them based on performance during people who entered in even years on one exam, then analyze them by people who entered in odd years on the other exam. Yes, this cuts your sample size in half. But it avoids this particular bias.

(This does not, unfortunately, avoid the possible bias from getting lucky with who they hired as teachers. Yes, the school may work. But was it by design or chance? The school will always think by design, but unless some charter school can start pumping out successful franchisees, it will be hard to find proof.)

beat10• 13 years ago

Charter schools that have a specific educational approach will attract a certain kind of teacher. At the charter my kids attended, teachers would either come and be gone in a year (they didn't get it), or they would become totally devoted to the cause, to the point where it would be difficult for another school to lure them away even if they tried.

Moreover, charters with a clearly-defined academic approach attract a certain kind of student, and a certain kind of parent. So you're not getting a flat, level field of either teachers or students (what I call a "perfectly spherical cow"). You're getting a selective subset of both teachers and students, which will bias the results right there.

btilly6• 13 years ago

Only looking at schools with lotteries can let you control for the student bias.

But you have an excellent point that a certain charter may be an excellent fit for some subset of teachers/parents, but not be appropriate for the broader population.

msglenn3• 13 years ago

As we fight to improve the quality of education in urban areas, it is critical that we pay attention to the results we're getting. That is the point, after all.

That said, this article fails to mention one of the most salient arguments in favor of charter schools: If education is the primary path for upward social mobility, then every parent should have some choice in where their child goes to school. And that choice should not be wholly dependent on current socioeconomic status.

Some schools may not do better according to traditional measurements, but creating a system where schools more transparently market their strengths and weaknesses to parents doesn't just give them more decision making power, over time it also creates a more informed parent class. Eventually leading to even better schools.

mbetter• 13 years ago

> If education is the primary path for upward social mobility, then every parent should have some choice in where their child goes to school.

I don't see how this follows.

msglenn3• 13 years ago

Access to quality education is not a right in this country, but attendance is required for a variety of reasons. Most of them related to creating and maintaining a functioning society. The more lofty goals of compulsory public education are about giving every child the skills to have a chance at a decent life.

So, if the government is going to force people to send their children to school, but isn't going to MANDATE a minimum quality level, they should at least give people a choice in deciding what's best for their kids. Because as it is now, the government is forcing people to send their kids to schools we all know are terrible.

jseliger• 13 years ago

Actually, I think the most important thing about charter schools is the failure feedback loop: bad ones can fail, which most large, urban school districts can't. No matter how bad a district or school might be, most parents have no cost-effective choice.

Charters at least solve that problem. I don't think they're a panacea or that all charters are automatically better than public schools, but at least they can fail.

tmzt• 13 years ago

A good word to inject into article titles like these is "some."

Do some charter schools work? A new study of Boston schools says yes.

adolph• 13 years ago

Toward the end, there is an interesting passage--maybe questions like "do charter schools work" or "are charter schools better" are missing the point. Maybe the existence of charter schools is about freedom to choose.

Charter schools can be set up for any purpose. Some focus on the arts, others emphasize cultural heritage (there are multiple Hmong charter schools in the Twin Cities alone); some are vocational, others rigorously academic. As Rockoff puts it, asking whether a particular school is good based on test scores or college placement is in many cases the wrong question: “To extend the restaurant metaphor, some people like Italian, others like Thai food. Similarly, many [charter] schools focus on tested subjects, while others might emphasize creative writing or the arts.” Not every charter school is right for every kid.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

Another "better test scores!" result...

beat10• 13 years ago

My twin children spent seven years in Minnesota charter schools - one at one school, six at another, ultimately graduating high school. Overall, the experience was extremely positive. The reason is obvious to me... there is no single "right" way to educate a child. Every child is different, and has different needs. Techniques that work well for one student can work poorly for another, or even be counterproductive. Charters allow more technique flexibility and focus than mainstream schools.

The first charter my kids attended, in sixth grade, was awful for them. They were miserable and got bad grades. Does that mean it was a bad school? No, it's a great school! But it was a bad school for my children. The rigid, Catholic-like environment of that first school is great for regular kids who could use a more disciplined environment, but for neuroatypicals, it sucked.

The second school we tried was absolutely wonderful. It followed a project-based learning curriculum that gave children a lot of control over their own learning, but also demanded a lot of responsibility. My oddball children (and the herd of aspies, ADD cases, and queers that accompanied them) thrived in this environment. But frankly, I think it would be a bad school for most kids. It's too demanding.

Charters are in part about experimentation. And some experiments will fail. It's not a good idea to conduct large-scale, risky educational experiments on involuntary subjects - mainstream schools. But for parents and kids who CHOOSE to try new things, the opportunities are fantastic.

Sadly, most people's opinions of charters are knee-jerk political reflex, rationalized with "results" that have nothing to do with how parents or kids feel about their education.

dopamean3• 13 years ago

My problem with the charter school discussion is that it is frequently framed in the context of "this charter school is better than this public school." Frankly, these comparisons are bullshit. Public schools are given a task that charter schools would never have to even imagine. Public schools must educate ALL children in their districts. Charter schools have the luxury of choosing who attends their schools and who stays after they have been admitted. It is an apples to oranges comparison.

Take any single "successful" or "highly rated" charter school in the country and then tell them they must educate all of the kids in the public school district in which their school resides and I doubt we would see the same results. To get into charter schools parents must fill out applications. Right off the bat you have created a pool of potential students who at the very least have parents at home who are active in their children's education. Children like that typically perform better in school regardless of the type of school.

So yeah charters can work. But they work not because they schools are better. They work because the students going to them are better.

LanceH2• 13 years ago

The same students do better at charter schools than when they go to a public school though. So it's not just selection bias. Getting away from the masses that have no interest in education is just as important in some places.

Sure, that's something that a public school -- bound by law to include everyone -- can't do, but it's no reason to drag others down into the mess that is public schools.

jedberg4• 13 years ago

Selection bias. The poor performers that move schools do so because they have involved parents, and involved parents are the #1 indicator of success in school.

jedberg4• 13 years ago

I was going to write basically the exact same thing. The comparison isn't fair.

Public schools have to accept everyone, charter schools can be selective.

The ones with lotteries are self-selecting too, because you have to have an involved parent to even enter the lottery, which means only the kids with "good parents" go to that school, which again biases them towards greater success.

stevesearer6• 13 years ago

While the comparison isn't perfectly apples to apples, I don't think it is fair to rule out the possibility that charter schools might do a better job of serving students with so-called "good parents". If it is the case, why is that a bad thing?

Do we not want schools that serve the needs of many different groups?

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

charter schools can be selective

Charter schools cannot be selective, by law, in most states, including my state (Minnesota), where charter schools have existed longest.

beat10• 13 years ago

You're wrong. Charter schools do NOT get to select, at least not in Minnesota (and states that allow selectiveness are being dumb).

You are right, though, in that you're starting with a pool of students whose parents care enough to look for something better and take an active role in their children's education. You might have a problem with that. If so, I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron.

DannoHung• 13 years ago

So if a kid grows up in an abusive home, fuck him forever because his parents don't give a shit.

msglenn3• 13 years ago

Ideally we would help ALL students improve, but isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school?

Otherwise we create a situation that looks like this:

1. Parents who are involved fight a losing battle to help their kids succeed in a school that is simply not equipped to educate them.

2. Those students fail to achieve in traditional ways, reinforcing the idea that it's pointless to try.

3. Repeat until everyone suffers from an acute case of learned helplessness.

dopamean3• 13 years ago

> isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school?

Not if the funding for the more rigorous school is coming from the same pool of funds that could have gone to the public school.

stevesearer6• 13 years ago

If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that?

Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks? That way you can target the specific needs of a smaller group and work to make each succeed rather than doing a mediocre job of trying to meet the incredibly diverse needs of a much larger group.

jfoutz• 13 years ago

That sounds really expensive.

betterunix4• 13 years ago

"If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that?"

We do not want to have a society where an elite, educated aristocracy rules over an uneducated serf class. That means we need to educate everyone, including people who have less potential.

"Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks?"

1. Who is going to pay for it? You will need more teachers, and you will need to pay for a system for dividing students.

2. Politics will come into play. The moment you divide students by anything other than their age, you face accusations of bias. Education is highly political; here is an example that should resonate with the HN crowd:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/nyregion/software-enginee...

msellout• 13 years ago

How is that different from an honors, IB, etc. program?

tonyrice• 13 years ago

I went to a charter school during my last two years of high school and it was probably one of the most important choices I have made to date. The charter school I went to used a lottery based system that got students in. This was kind of a negative thing in my opinion. For me the traditional public educational process was in a way meaningless. I have always been self-taught and the charter school I went to allowed me to. In high school things were kind of going downhill for me until I made the decision of going to a charter school.

People learn in many different ways. There were people at the charter school I went to that really didn't care all that much so their experience was a lot different from mine. I complete agree with you when you say that you don't like how people state "this charter school is better than this public school." People learn differently than others. The traditional route is perfect for some and charter schools are better for others. Not all charter schools are the same along with public schools.

zwieback• 13 years ago

The article explains fairly well what this study does to counter your point. The charter advantage seems to be fairly narrow: urban overcrowded areas. However, in those areas there does seem to be an advantage and it appears to be due to longer hours.

jedberg4• 13 years ago

Who funded the study? Is it some organization that would benefit from more charter schools existing? $10 says it is.

omni• 13 years ago

The article states that the study was released by The Boston Foundation [1] and MIT's School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative [2].

That said, your comment basically amounts to an ad hominem attack against an article and related study that you clearly didn't even read, as the information you were asking for was provided in the article. Your post does nothing to further intelligent discussion. It's bad, and you should feel bad.

[1] http://www.tbf.org/ [2]: http://seii.mit.edu/

jedberg4• 13 years ago

I don't feel bad because I did read the article and I did see who funded it, and I still don't know the answer to my question. What does "The Boston Foundation" actually do?

rollo_tommasi• 13 years ago

Test scores and college-acceptance rates seem like odd metrics for judging the success of K-12 education - surely the goal is loftier than just slotting kids into a college. You can optimize a process for "winning" college admissions much more easily than you can optimize a process for developing a basic intellectual toolkit and the organizational skills and self-discipline required to apply it.

Maybe charter schools haven't been widely operating long enough for this, but is anyone aware of any studies - either completed or in progress - that compare charter/standard public/private school student life-outcomes on a longer time-scale?

Glyptodon• 13 years ago

I can't help but view charter schools as a means to further the social and class stratification of America.

I certainly agree that the same shoe can't fit every person, but systems that allow self-selection and the stranding of the downtrodden in hopeless and ineffective environments can't be good for the health of a nation which relies on elections and by proxy the ability of each citizen to think and reason their way through the ballot box.

I tend to think that forcing everyone to use public education would coerce the parents who send their kids to charter and private schools to instead push for improvements in public education that all students would benefit from, rather than being able to ignore large segments of society and having strong incentives to make public education worse at the expense of the country as a whole.

beat10• 13 years ago

Look at it another way - charters provide involved but financially poor parents with the sort of focused alternatives formerly available only to the parents that could afford private schools.

And more bluntly, I find it really frustrating that diversity is a liberal value EXCEPT when it comes to education. The real value of charters imho is diversity, not superiority. Give kids a chance to be educated in a a manner suited to their own minds and personalities, not trapped in a one-size-fits-most-but-really-sucks-for-others system.

TheCowboy• 13 years ago

"Warren Buffett framed the problem for me once in a way that clarified how basic our most stubborn obstacles are. He said it would be easy to solve today's problems in urban education. 'Make private schools illegal,' he said, 'and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.' "

tomjen3• 13 years ago

When your income is in the millions you can afford to send your kid to any school you want (and if you outlaw private schools, they can be send abroad).

Charter schools allow those who aren't that well of to get a better education for their kids, which is fair as it is their tax money which pays for the education in the first place.

tokenadult3• 13 years ago

I have seen some examples of helpful reforms where I live. Minnesota, where I now live and where I grew up, has had largely equal per-capita funding for public school pupils statewide since the 1970s. The state law change that made most school funding come from general state appropriations rather than from local property taxes was called the "Minnesota miracle."

http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/18public.htm...

Today most funding for schools is distributed by the state government on a per-pupil enrollment basis.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/mnschfin.pdf

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/SchSup/SchFin/index.html

The funding reform in the 1970s was followed up by two further reforms in the 1980s. First, the former compulsory instruction statute in Minnesota was ruled unconstitutional in a court case involving a homeschooling family, and a new compulsory instruction statute explicitly allows more nonpublic school alternatives for families who seek those. Second, the Legislature, pushed by the then Governor, set up statewide open enrollment

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/EnrollChoice/index.h...

and the opportunity for advanced learners to attend up to two years of college while still high school students on the state's dime.

http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/StuSuc/CollReadi/PSEO/index...

And Minnesota also has the oldest charter school statute in the United States.

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-Chance-Passage-Pioneering-Charter...

Parents in Minnesota now have more power to shop than parents in most states. That gets closer to the ideal of detect the optimum education environment for each student (by parents observing what works for each of their differing children) and give it to them by open-enrolling in another school district (my school district has inbound open-enrollment students from forty-one other school districts of residence) or by homeschooling, or by postsecondary study at high school age, or by exercising other choices.

The educational results of Minnesota schools are well above the meager results of most United States schools, and almost competitive (but not fully competitive) with the better schools in the newly industrialized countries of east Asia and southeast Asia. It's a start. More choices would be even better.

Do charter schools work? A new study of Boston schools says yes.

Related Stories