Boston public-school apartheid?

I have three main points of disagreement with this piece:  1) I take the statement that charter schools "often expel underachievers" to mean that charter school are being accused of kicking out kids who don't perform well.  This is completely false in my 5+ years of experience in charter schools.  The only times I have ever seen student move down the road to expulsion (and there have been less than a handful out of at least 1000 of students at that) were students who brought weapons to school or repeatedly caused or threatened phyiscal harm to other students. Most of these students were not low achievers, and this policy is in line with state law.  In BPS, these students would be segregated at an alternative program like the McKinley.  2) The article recognizes that the MTA is staunchly anti-charter but then quotes from and uses their study as proof of the "flaws" of charter schools ad naseum.  Recognizing that a study could be biased (which it clearly is - the MTA holds up as examples of BPS school success three of their best schools, two of which have selective admissions), does not then mean that quoting from this study is good journalistic practice. 3) When the students at my school visited a BPS school last year, they came back shocked at the behavior and lack of academic focus in the classrooms they saw.  They saw students playing with their cell phones, listening to iPods, and talking to each other in class while the teacher was trying to teach.  They know the difference.  They know that the Milton Acadmies of the world are better options than the English Highs.  Anyone who doesn't admit that is kidding themselves.

One more thing.  The author states "The dismal reputation of Boston's district system might be a sad reality of institutions filled with children from broken and low-income families. ...In response, charter advocates are unflinching in their belief that the plight of the overall framework should not be a factor in considering the academic future of their select students."  First of all, the students in Boston charter schools come from low-income families too.  Second, blaming family situations for educational outcomes means that one assumes that it is impossible for low income kids to be successful (which charter schools prove wrong every year - look at the subgroup MCAS data on the DESE website).  Third, charter school students are not "select" until they've been at a charter school for a couple of years.  They enter our schools years behind educationally because of poor schooling in the early grades.  Their 4th grade MCAS scores before they get to us prove that.  By the time they leave our schools, many of them have become "select" through the hard work they have put in with their teachers over their time with us.  Kids who have worked as hard as they have and who have turned around their education should be rewarded by not having to go to underperforming high schools but rather to schools where they can continue on their new academic trajectories.

.One more thing.  The author states "The dismal reputation of Boston's district system might be a sad reality of institutions filled with children from broken and low-income families. ...In response, charter advocates are unflinching in their belief that the plight of the overall framework should not be a factor in considering the academic future of their select students."  First of all, the students in Boston charter schools come from low-income families too.  Second, blaming family situations for educational outcomes means that one assumes that it is impossible for low income kids to be successful (which charter schools prove wrong every year - look at the subgroup MCAS data on the DESE website).  Third, charter school students are not "select" until they've been at a charter school for a couple of years.  They enter our schools years behind educationally because of poor schooling in the early grades.  Their 4th grade MCAS scores before they get to us prove that.  By the time they leave our schools, many of them have become "select" through the hard work they have put in with their teachers over their time with us.  Kids who have worked as hard as they have and who have turned around their education should be rewarded by not having to go to underperforming high schools but rather to schools where they can continue on their new academic trajectories

As a special education teacher in the BPS I have many unanswered questions as to why these schools also do not have to have services for special education students. Yet we are required BY LAW to provide these services to any and ALL students that come through our doors. I believe that there are many ?'s left unanswered and until they are clear, the movement towards "increasing # of charter schools" needs to end and the focus needs to be on how we can improve the BPS schools that we currently face challenges with...Great insight into what we like to call the "unknown" because there is not enough research/literature/evidence about these charter schools

I think that the debate misses the entire point of the charter school experiment. If commonwealth Charters were created to try out different techniques with longer school days and more autonomous administrations, with the results then intended to be situated within a larger district school setting, why is this not considered.  There are flaws to Charter schools, without question, and I will try to address them, but it is important to see what they ahve done right.  Accountability: Prinicipals and Executive Directors are held accountable to improving the outcomes of their students. If a school fails to improve learning methods and the students do not improve, it is not granted funding.  That means bad teachers are replaced (not allowed in district schools), school days are extended (not allowed in District Schools), and students are pushed.  I used to teacha student who did not understand what a sentence was in the 11th grade. We held him back because he did not pass his English or Math and was in 11th grade for a second year. He transferred to Brighton High, one of the best district schools in the city, and was immediately promoted to senior, took two classes, and played basketball for 3 hours a day. He came back and told his former classmates, seniors and juniors about how easy it was, and one by one, as soon as the students turned 18, they moved on. Even these students, who came in at 9th grade reading, writing and performing math years below grade level, found the district schools to be so easy and many told me explicitly that they regretted their decisions.  This battle has developed into teacher's union vs. Charter schools. Unfortunately, the people that matter, the students, are overlooked entirely. If students were held to the rigorous standards that charter schools hold their students all over the city from the time they started school, then the students would not be permitted to fall back to the mediocrity that pervades their academic experience. If a child is taught that it is ok to fail and keep trying from a younger age, first, second, third grade, then they may have gained important basic skills that will permit them to push through when things do become difficult. The excuse that many teachers make that it is the parents' fault is used to get themself off the hook. If schools were to begin change at the youngest grades then push them through with higher standards, then important strides would be made in this debate. Not the incessant bickering that does not keep students in school or improve their lives. With special needs students, I would have to agree that charter schools do need to make improvements. Remember, however, that they receive only about half the money that district schools do per student and are often understaffed and overworked. Many Boston Charter schools do not pay their teachers as much as district schools can. In New York, KIPP Academy pays a first year teacher over 70,000 a year. However, teachers put in long hours and work significantly harder and are more committed to the schools than average teachers.  There needs to be a middle ground where student success is not taken for granted, where teachers work for their students, are compensated, and the system can be rectified.

I think that the debate misses the entire point of the charter school experiment. If commonwealth Charters were created to try out different techniques with longer school days and more autonomous administrations, with the results then intended to be situated within a larger district school setting, why is this not considered.  There are flaws to Charter schools, without question, and I will try to address them, but it is important to see what they ahve done right.  Accountability: Prinicipals and Executive Directors are held accountable to improving the outcomes of their students. If a school fails to improve learning methods and the students do not improve, it is not granted funding.  That means bad teachers are replaced (not allowed in district schools), school days are extended (not allowed in District Schools), and students are pushed.  I used to teacha student who did not understand what a sentence was in the 11th grade. We held him back because he did not pass his English or Math and was in 11th grade for a second year. He transferred to Brighton High, one of the best district schools in the city, and was immediately promoted to senior, took two classes, and played basketball for 3 hours a day. He came back and told his former classmates, seniors and juniors about how easy it was, and one by one, as soon as the students turned 18, they moved on. Even these students, who came in at 9th grade reading, writing and performing math years below grade level, found the district schools to be so easy and many told me explicitly that they regretted their decisions.  This battle has developed into teacher's union vs. Charter schools. Unfortunately, the people that matter, the students, are overlooked entirely. If students were held to the rigorous standards that charter schools hold their students all over the city from the time they started school, then the students would not be permitted to fall back to the mediocrity that pervades their academic experience. If a child is taught that it is ok to fail and keep trying from a younger age, first, second, third grade, then they may have gained important basic skills that will permit them to push through when things do become difficult. The excuse that many teachers make that it is the parents' fault is used to get themself off the hook. If schools were to begin change at the youngest grades then push them through with higher standards, then important strides would be made in this debate. Not the incessant bickering that does not keep students in school or improve their lives. With special needs students, I would have to agree that charter schools do need to make improvements. Remember, however, that they receive only about half the money that district schools do per student and are often understaffed and overworked. Many Boston Charter schools do not pay their teachers as much as district schools can. In New York, KIPP Academy pays a first year teacher over 70,000 a year. However, teachers put in long hours and work significantly harder and are more committed to the schools than average teachers.  There needs to be a middle ground where student success is not taken for granted, where teachers work for their students, are compensated, and the system can be rectified.

Charters, pilot schools and even some of the small high schools are segregating kids based not on race per se, but on a new criteria: readiness to learn.  Yes, many kids from charters come from 'low income' families.  But generally speaking, what makes kids in charters, pilots and small programs different is the fact that they are, for whatever reasons, more ready to learn than many (but not all) of their traditional school counterparts.  This happens because their parents tend to be more motivated and involved than the kids who are being sheparded into a smaller and smaller number of challenging schools. As for charters being so-called "incubators" for "new and innovative teaching" strategies - where is the evidence for this?  I haven't seen a single study that actually examines the pedagogy of charter schools.  But I have heard plenty of anicdotal evidence from students who have left charter schools.  These students arrive every spring - between January and April (must be a coincidence since the charter schools would never "push" kids out) and the stories that they relate unsolicited usually make it sound as though the school they were at was run like a boot camp. Some might say that is okay.  But the problem with this is that: 1) it is hardly innovative, and; 2) traditional district schools are not allowed to operate in this format. And btw, students who bring weapons into BPS schools are not segregated into special programs (as someone here claimed in an earlier post).  Most times they are sent to the Barron Center for 10 days, and are then allowed back into the school where they committed the offense.  Many times they are simply let back in without being punished.  Other times they are transferred to another traditional school - with little or no warning to the other teachers and administrators.  The one thing that never happens to them is straight expulsion.  Not that I have ever seen or heard of in my ten years in the BPS.  At the end of the day, I think the argument comes down to this.  Massachusetts, according to the NAEP - which is the best data available on student achievement - has the highest performing traditional public schools in the country.  We score first or second in the NAEP in every category - every year.  No other state comes even remotely close.  We are too public education nationally what the old Soviet national team was to hockey back during the Cold War: untouchable.  And yet, a certain percentage of the 60 odd charter schools in the state lay some claim to be outperforming our traditional schools.  I can't remember the exact number - but let's say for arguments sake that it is 50%.  This means that 30 odd charter schools are allegedly outperforming traditional district schools - at least on a singe measure (the MCAS exam).  And yet, these schools have almost no ESL kids, hardly any SPED kids, and have the power and ability to push kids out that are meeting their standards.  Maybe there is a lesson or two that these 30 some odd schools can teach to the other 1200 + schools in Massachusetts that rank among the best in the world.  But just because half of the charters are alleging to outperform the traditionals (and using very thin data), that is hardly an argument in favor of turning current educational policy on its head.

Charters, pilot schools and even some of the small high schools are segregating kids based not on race per se, but on a new criteria: readiness to learn.  Yes, many kids from charters come from 'low income' families.  But generally speaking, what makes kids in charters, pilots and small programs different is the fact that they are, for whatever reasons, more ready to learn than many (but not all) of their traditional school counterparts.  This happens because their parents tend to be more motivated and involved than the kids who are being sheparded into a smaller and smaller number of challenging schools. As for charters being so-called "incubators" for "new and innovative teaching" strategies - where is the evidence for this?  I haven't seen a single study that actually examines the pedagogy of charter schools.  But I have heard plenty of anicdotal evidence from students who have left charter schools.  These students arrive every spring - between January and April (must be a coincidence since the charter schools would never "push" kids out) and the stories that they relate unsolicited usually make it sound as though the school they were at was run like a boot camp. Some might say that is okay.  But the problem with this is that: 1) it is hardly innovative, and; 2) traditional district schools are not allowed to operate in this format. And btw, students who bring weapons into BPS schools are not segregated into special programs (as someone here claimed in an earlier post).  Most times they are sent to the Barron Center for 10 days, and are then allowed back into the school where they committed the offense.  Many times they are simply let back in without being punished.  Other times they are transferred to another traditional school - with little or no warning to the other teachers and administrators.  The one thing that never happens to them is straight expulsion.  Not that I have ever seen or heard of in my ten years in the BPS.  At the end of the day, I think the argument comes down to this.  Massachusetts, according to the NAEP - which is the best data available on student achievement - has the highest performing traditional public schools in the country.  We score first or second in the NAEP in every category - every year.  No other state comes even remotely close.  We are too public education nationally what the old Soviet national team was to hockey back during the Cold War: untouchable.  And yet, a certain percentage of the 60 odd charter schools in the state lay some claim to be outperforming our traditional schools.  I can't remember the exact number - but let's say for arguments sake that it is 50%.  This means that 30 odd charter schools are allegedly outperforming traditional district schools - at least on a singe measure (the MCAS exam).  And yet, these schools have almost no ESL kids, hardly any SPED kids, and have the power and ability to push kids out that are meeting their standards.  Maybe there is a lesson or two that these 30 some odd schools can teach to the other 1200 + schools in Massachusetts that rank among the best in the world.  But just because half of the charters are alleging to outperform the traditionals (and using very thin data), that is hardly an argument in favor of turning current educational policy on its head.

BTW, one of our former students who went to MATCH came back to visit us last year.  He was one of the many students who left MATCH - people like me would say that we was pushed out.  When I asked him why he left, he told us that they set up a tutoring schedule that required him to stay at MATCH until 9 or 10PM every night, and all day on Saturdays. This is his account, not mine.  But clearly he felt as though the "deal" that they offered him was a brick wall - so high that he could never climb over it.  He clearly felt like he had been set up and driven out.   I don't see how anyone can justify this as "innovative" pedagogy.  Pushing kids to do better is one thing.  Remediating them is one thing.  But creating a "remediation" plan that makes them feel beat down and set up to fail?  That is unconscionable.  

Charter schools set up admissions hurdles that disourage under involved families and struggling students. When special education, ELL, under motivated, or students with behavior problems actully make it through the admission process and "lotteries", they are often sent back to the sending district school. I currently have a student, with some serious learning disabilities, who was at a charter school last year. She was told that she needed to go back to the public schools or be kept back. They bribed her to leave by promoting her. This type of stuff happens all the time. For years, my school has been getting struggling students (usually students with disabilities) back from charter schools, yet we never send out struggling students to their way. The charter clowns deny this but it happens every year. As for the phony "lotteries", take a look at the charter school on the Cape. There is a charter school on the cape that has 100% of their students in the International Baccaluareate program which is more rigorous than AP. I don't know what planet you live on, but on earth it is impossible to enroll 100% of students into an IB program by a random lottery. Boston was torn apart in the 70's because of segregation. There is a new segregation here. The charter school cheerleaders now think that it is OK to segregate special education and ELL students from students without disabilities. We should either close charter schools or desegregate them.

Charter schools set up admissions hurdles that disourage under involved families and struggling students. When special education, ELL, under motivated, or students with behavior problems actully make it through the admission process and "lotteries", they are often sent back to the sending district school. I currently have a student, with some serious learning disabilities, who was at a charter school last year. She was told that she needed to go back to the public schools or be kept back. They bribed her to leave by promoting her. This type of stuff happens all the time. For years, my school has been getting struggling students (usually students with disabilities) back from charter schools, yet we never send out struggling students to their way. The charter clowns deny this but it happens every year. As for the phony "lotteries", take a look at the charter school on the Cape. There is a charter school on the cape that has 100% of their students in the International Baccaluareate program which is more rigorous than AP. I don't know what planet you live on, but on earth it is impossible to enroll 100% of students into an IB program by a random lottery. Boston was torn apart in the 70's because of segregation. There is a new segregation here. The charter school cheerleaders now think that it is OK to segregate special education and ELL students from students without disabilities. We should either close charter schools or desegregate them.

The blanket statement that charter schools are “unfit to accommodate needy, foreign-language speaking, or poorly behaved students” is one that we at Excel Academy Charter School respectfully challenge.  Excel Academy, located in East Boston, serves a student body representative of its surrounding community – over two-thirds of our students are Latino and low-income.  Over 50% of our students do not speak English at home. One might suggest that these are the types of students that, according to the article, charter schools aren’t equipped to educate.  But let the facts speak for themselves. On the Spring 2009 MCAS, our 8^th graders ranked first in the state in both English and math.  Ninety-five percent of students scored Advanced/Proficient in English.   Every day, we assert that Excel Academy can and will meet the needs of all students and we have the data to prove it.

The blanket statement that charter schools are “unfit to accommodate needy, foreign-language speaking, or poorly behaved students” is one that we at Excel Academy Charter School respectfully challenge.  Excel Academy, located in East Boston, serves a student body representative of its surrounding community – over two-thirds of our students are Latino and low-income.  Over 50% of our students do not speak English at home. One might suggest that these are the types of students that, according to the article, charter schools aren’t equipped to educate.  But let the facts speak for themselves. On the Spring 2009 MCAS, our 8^th graders ranked first in the state in both English and math.  Ninety-five percent of students scored Advanced/Proficient in English.   Every day, we assert that Excel Academy can and will meet the needs of all students and we have the data to prove it.

The blanket statement that charter schools are “unfit to accommodate needy, foreign-language speaking, or poorly behaved students” is one that we at Excel Academy Charter School respectfully challenge.  Excel Academy, located in East Boston, serves a student body representative of its surrounding community – over two-thirds of our students are Latino and low-income.  Over 50% of our students do not speak English at home. One might suggest that these are the types of students that, according to the article, charter schools aren’t equipped to educate.  But let the facts speak for themselves. On the Spring 2009 MCAS, our 8^th graders ranked first in the state in both English and math.  Ninety-five percent of students scored Advanced/Proficient in English.   Every day, we assert that Excel Academy can and will meet the needs of all students and we have the data to prove it.