NY Times on charter schools

David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times:

Many charter schools fail to live up to their promise, but one type has repeatedly shown impressive results.

Hannah Larkin, the principal at Match, refers to such schools as “high expectations, high support” schools. They devote more of their resources to classroom teaching and less to almost everything else. They keep in class for more hours. They set high standards for students and try to instill confidence in them. They focus on giving teachers feedback about their craft and helping them get better.

And how have these schools done?

The latest batch of evidence about this approach is among the most rigorous. Professors at M.I.T., Columbia, Michigan and Berkeley have tracked thousands of charter-school applicants, through high school and beyond, in Boston, where most charters fit the “high expectations, high support” model.

Crucially, the researchers took several steps to make sure the findings were real. They compared lottery winners with losers, controlling for the fact that families who applied for the lotteries were different from families who didn’t. They also counted as charter all those who enrolled, including any who later left.

This is quite crucial. Some here claim that kids are doing better at charter schools because the sort of parents motivated to apply are parents more interested in their kids education. But these researchers took this into account by comparing outcomes of those who applied and got in with those who applied and did not.

When you talk to the professors about their findings, you hear a degree of excitement that’s uncommon for academic researchers. “Relative to other things that social scientists and education policy people have tried to boost performance — class sizes, tracking, new buildings — these schools are producing spectacular gains,” said Joshua Angrist, an M.I.T. professor.

who go to Boston’s charter schools learn reading and math better and faster than elsewhere. They are more likely to take A.P. tests and to do well on them. Their SAT scores are higher than for similar elsewhere — an average of 51 points higher on the math SAT. Many more students attend a four-year college, suggesting that the benefits don’t disappear over time.

Yet Labour, Greens, NZ First and the unions are determined to close down every charter school in NZ.

The gains are large enough that some of Boston’s charters, despite enrolling mostly lower-income students, have test scores that resemble those of upper-middle-class public schools. The seventh graders at the Brooke Charter schools in East Boston and Roslindale fare as well on a state math test as at the prestigious Boston Latin school, the country’s oldest public school and a school with an admissions exam.

Not only do they close the gaps between poor and well off students, the cited has graphs showing they almost entirely close the gap between white and black students.

A frequent criticism of charters is that they skim off the best students, but that’s not the case in Boston. Many groups that struggle academically — boys, African-Americans, Latinos, special-education students like Alanna — are among the biggest beneficiaries. On average, notes Parag Pathak, also of M.I.T., Boston’s charters eliminate between one-third and one-half of the white-black test-score gap in a single year.

The left should be embracing charter schools, not trying to close them down.

Two recent analyses of multiple studies concluded that charters do not hurt outcomes at other schools — and may even help improve them, by creating competition.

A dirty word to some – competition.

For anyone who sees some merit on both sides, I’d encourage listening to Susan Dynarski, one of the researchers who conducted the Boston study.

A University of Michigan professor (and Times contributor), Dynarski is a proudly former union organizer. She told me that she had agonized over being on the opposite side of an issue as some of her friends and usual allies. …

“The gains to in charters are enormous. They are larger than any I have seen in my career,” Dynarski wrote. “To me, it is immoral to deny children a better education because charters don’t meet some voters’ ideal of what a public school should be. Children don’t live in the long term. They need us to deliver now.”

A very good article.

Comments (47)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment

%d bloggers like this: