ON NOVEMBER 8, Massachusetts voters will decide whether to lift the cap on charter schools, eliminating a major constraint on charter school formation and expansion in the Commonwealth. Proponents of lifting the cap contend that charters schools provide real educational choice to families and have the potential to improve student outcomes. My colleague Thomas Kane made these arguments in a recent essay for CommonWealth. But another look at the evidence suggests that by passing the charter cap override, voters will be gambling with the future of Massachusetts students – academically, personally, and financially.
My reasoning stems from a close reading of the evidence on charter schools generally, and charter schools in Boston in particular. Many studies in many states have shown that charter schools do little, on average, to improve student test scores. For urban charter schools, however, the evidence suggests a more promising story. Recent studies using lottery data – that is, comparing applicants who gained a seat in a charter school versus those who were turned away – show positive impacts on student test scores.
With all this positive evidence, why not support lifting the charter cap? Because test scores and enrollment in college are not the end of the road for most students, and because emerging evidence suggests that these positive effects may fade as students begin their adult lives.
This is the case in Boston, where researchers’ careful tracking of six charter high schools over the last decade has shown that those charters have a large and positive impacts on MCAS scores as compared to the city’s conventional public high schools. Charter attendees post higher SAT scores, and more charter students take an AP exam. Charter impacts on college attendance rates are large, with 59 percent of charter attendees enrolling in a four-year college as compared to 41 percent of non-charter attendees.
But while charter-enrolled Boston students were more likely to take AP exams, researchers found that they were generally not more likely to score at the level rewarded with college credit by most Boston-area universities. And although charter students are more likely to enroll in 4-year than 2-year colleges, their overall rate of persistence past the third semester is indistinguishable from non-charter students.
Researchers have not yet examined later-life outcomes from Boston charters. Many would agree that these outcomes – college graduation, employment, wages, marriage and homeownership – matter more than test scores and the SAT, or gaining entry to college. But a recent study of “no excuse” charter schools in Texas casts doubt on the idea that stronger initial test scores will translate into positive later-life outcomes. In that study, the authors found the no-excuse charters increased students’ state test scores, high school graduation rates, college enrollment and persistence – even more positive results than found in Boston. But in their mid-20s, no-excuses charter attendees were not more likely to be employed or to earn more than non-charter students, and students in regular charters actually earned significantly less than otherwise would be expected.
Given these results, and given that there have yet to be long-term studies on impacts on later-life outcomes for our state’s urban charter schools, caution is warranted.
Caution is particularly important in Massachusetts, a state with historically strong public schools and strong active reform efforts. Public schools, given the right incentives and resources, can be as effective at innovating to raise test scores as charters, as two recent studies of Massachusetts’ turnaround schools show.
Similarly, Somerville recently began a dual strategy of using student assessments to inform instruction and implementing interventions aimed at struggling students. The initiatives resulted in district student growth scores in the top 12 percentile statewide, and a high school that ranks in the 97th percentile. An increase of 30 percent in district spending permitted these improvement efforts.
But Question 2 would create major financial burdens for Somerville and other districts for many years to come. For each new charter school that opens, a neighborhood school must close, a process that has proven excruciating in other parts of the . Many cities will experience annual deficits (see this simulation) and no predictability in planning, which in turn prevents long-term improvement efforts.
Considering these uncertain benefits and certain risks, I urge voters to vote no on Question 2.
Heather C. Hill is a professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
If you’re pro-charter schools or simply undecided, please take a little time to view three videos: Charter Schools: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver; the 60 Minutes segment on the “secretive Turkish Islamic sect,” and the Question 2 debate “More Charter Schools? The Massachusetts Vote and the National Debate.” You owe it to yourself to know what some of the issues are with charter schools. VOTE NO on Question 2.
During the remaining days leading up to Tuesday, November 8, as you see or listen to the slick and expensive Madison Avenue-level TV/radio commercials promoting “YES” on Question 2 promulgating such lies as …
“Question 2 will add more money to public schools (LIE: it won’t. In fac
it will do just the opposite.
or
“Question 2 won’t take money away from existing public schools (LIE: it will… a lot of money, in fact.)
… or when view the slick mailers you find in your mailbox, or when listen to robo-calls, think about this following post about EXACTLY WHO is paying for those ads:
The latest is that over $21.7 million of out-of-state money from the most ruthless capitalists who have ever walked the Earth — Eli Broad, the Walton family of Walmart, Wall Street hedge fund managers, etc. — is pouring into Massachusetts to pass Question 2.
Read this well-researched article here for that $21.7 million figure:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/as-ma-question-2-funding-nears-32-million-dfer-files-a-new-ballot-committee/
These profit-minded plutocrats who are pouring in this money obviously …
— do not live in Massachusetts,
— have no children, grandchildren, or other relatives that attend public schools in Massachusetts
— have never given a sh#% about the education of middle or lower income until recently, when they realized they could make a buck off privatizing Massachusetts schools via the expansion of privately-run charter schools,.
They want to these corporate charter schools to replace truly public schools — the ones that, for generations, have been accountable and transparent to the public via democratically elected school boards, and which are mandated to educate ALL of the public… including those hardest or most difficult to educate … special ed., English Language Learners, homeless kids, foster care kids, kids with difficult behavior arising from distressed home lives.
Are proponents of Question 2 seriously making the argument that out-of-state billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers are pumping in all this money because those folks care so much about the education of kids in Massachusetts?
You really think they are NOT seeking a big money return on these ($21.7 million campaign donations?
Does that pass the smell test?
Can you provide an example of JUST ONE TIME in the past where they poured in this kind of cash to something … no strings attached, and with no expectations of return?
If, as Q 2 supporters like Marty Walz claim, the most ruthless capitalists that have ever walked the Earth are now kicking in this kind of cash to pass Question 2 merely because they care about children’s education —
… and if they are not about their profiting through the privatization of public schools brought about by the expansion of privately-run charter schools,
… then I’m sure one of you Q 2 supporters could google and find a past example where they have done something similar .. .again out of generosity… with no expectation of an eventual monetary return…
Something like …
“Well, back in 2000-something, or 1900-something, these same folks donated
$20 million to the (INSERT CHARITABLE CAUSE HERE). Here’s the link that proves this.”
No, I didn’t think so. When this was brought up in a debate, Mary Walz refused to address it, saying, “We need to talk about the kids, not the adults.” Well, keeping money-motivated scum from raping and pillaging Massachusetts public schools IS CARING ABOUT THE KIDS, Marty! (By the way, those are many of the same folks who raped and pillaged the housing/mortgage industry a decade ago … go watch the film THE BIG SHORT to get up to speed on that … they’ve just moved on to new place to plunder.)
So the real question is:
To whom do the schools of Massachusetts belong? The citizens and parents who pay the taxes there?
Or a bunch of money-motivated out-of-state billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers who are trying to buy them via Question 2, and the expansion of privately-managed charter schools which they control, or also profit from their on-line and digital learning products that will be sold to these charter school chains?
If you believe the former, THEN FOR GOD’S SAKE, VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 2.
Send them a message: Massachusetts schools are NOT FOR SALE!!!
Oh and go watch the John Oliver charter school video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I
Oh and listen to this dissection of a “YES on 2” radio ad:
http://wrsi.com/monte/dissecting-the-great-schools-massachusetts-ad-on-question-2/
or watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRHx5OnJ6Po
I think the question “More charter schools or fewer charter schools?” is the wrong question to be asking. Instead, I believe the correct question is “Should we, or should we not, commit to bringing proven instructional methodologies into all schools?” So far, the populace has answered with a resounding “No!” (Or perhaps no one but me has thought to conceptualize the issues this way, but I doubt it.) Frankly, my concern is not where a student attends school: public, charter, private, home, the library, the local deli …. My concern is what happens during the hours that a student is in that physical space. We know how to effectively instruct even the most difficult to teach students. Why don’t we simply do that everywhere?
Ellen M. Chambers, MBA
Special Education Advocacy Consultant
emchambers@charter.net