Over at Gotham Schools (and elswhere in the blogosphere), there's an ongoing debate about the nature of charter school skimming (aka creaming). I would agree with most of skoolboy's analysis and would agree that much of it takes place in Boston, too. A few points in response.
1) My experience is that kids entering charter middle schools in Boston from BPS schools are not academically advanced. Most enter charters multiple grade levels behind in reading and math, just like their district school peers. Where these kids are advantaged is that their parents are together enough to make the choice to opt out of BPS (or whatever other schools their kids are in - often parochial, other charter schools, or METCO).
Despite this advantage, they have not been able to keep their kids academically on grade level. I think some charter school opponents imagine that these parents are on top of their kids' learning like wealthy private school parents.
In fact, many charter school parents don't realize that their kids are behind, or the degree to which they are behind; they often choose charter schools for safety and structural reasons (uniforms, etc.).
I would agree, however, that once their children are enrolled, these parents' "togetherness" allows their children to benefit from the structures of successful charter schools.
Despite this advantage, they have not been able to keep their kids academically on grade level. I think some charter school opponents imagine that these parents are on top of their kids' learning like wealthy private school parents.
In fact, many charter school parents don't realize that their kids are behind, or the degree to which they are behind; they often choose charter schools for safety and structural reasons (uniforms, etc.).
I would agree, however, that once their children are enrolled, these parents' "togetherness" allows their children to benefit from the structures of successful charter schools.
2) Obviously, some of the students that enter charter schools from BPS schools are high-achieving when they enter. Others, respond quickly to charter school interevention and start to achieve at exceptionally high levels. Interestingly, charter schools often lose many these strongest students after 6th grade, 8th grade or 9th grade when they choose to attend exam schools (Boston Latin School, Boston Latin Academy, and the O'Bryant School of Math and Science). Some parents see high achieving charter schools as a way to prep their kids for these schools.
I'm a parent/school activist/blogger in San Francisco who has been participating in the Gotham Schools discussion.
ReplyDeleteJust my 2 cents, speaking as an observer: The description I've used of families who would make the effort to choose a charter school (I've commented the most on KIPP) is "motivated, higher-functioning and compliant."
I would agree that this is likely: "... many charter school parents don't realize that their kids are behind, or the degree to which they are behind; they often choose charter schools for safety and structural reasons (uniforms, etc.)."
I'm also the blogger who originally researched and posted the very high attrition at the San Francisco Bay Area KIPP schools, something that the press and researchers studying KIPP had previously neglected to check. A subsequent study by the organization SRI International confirmed my findings: 60% of the students who start the Bay Area KIPP schools leave before finishing, and are not replaced with new students; and they are consistently the lower achievers.
So, those are factors that may impact charter schools. I can't speak to what happens in Boston, of course.
I can't speak to the SF KIPP schools, but I know that some Boston charter schools lose low achieving students after the students' first year at the school because they are being retained. Some parents don't like the social stigma; others blame the school or a particular teacher and think the child is ready for the next grade. I can think of a student who was at my school for one year, whose parents pulled him at the end of the year because he was being retained. We were not surprised because his mom had told us that he had been in a different school every year since kindergarten. Every time she was told that he didn't have the skills for the next grade, she pulled him and put him in the next grade level at a different grade level. That's obviously an extreme case, but certainly one that did not take his needs into account.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, it's better to retain a student in their first year at the school in an attempt to catch them up, rather than letting them get further behind and then face retenion later on when they are dealing with more advanced reading material and mathematical concepts.
As to your description of charter school parents as "motivated, higher-functioning and compliant," I would agree that most are motivated and many (but not all) are higher-functioning. In terms of compliant, my sense is that some believe in what we do and are therefore appropriately aligned to our model. Others want their kids in our school, but still fight us tooth and nail about our policies. They are not compliant; rather, they are tolerant of our ideas.
I haven't really gone into why the attrition would happen. My guess -- which I recall is supported by the SRI study -- is that it's a combination of factors, and sure, parents pissed off that the school wanted to "flunk" their kids would likely be one of them.
ReplyDeleteBut here's my first question. If the traditional public school down the street also lost the bottom 60% of its students for whatever reason -- and thus just retained the highest-achieving 40% -- would it do as well as the KIPP school with the remaining kids?
Second question: If it were possible disaggregate all the different specialized KIPP practices and determine which of them had how much impact overall, what would the result be? What if the KIPP school ran just like any traditional public school except with the self-selection/creaming and the attrition of the bottom 60% of performers? The answer is, of course, that we don't know. But isn't the fact that we don't know a big gap in our understanding?
Re compliance -- well, depending on the school (I'm still focusing on KIPP schools) there's still a degree of compliance required -- not that it guarantees that a parent won't wind up fighting tooth and nail when a policy that sounded OK in the abstract slaps them in the face in reality.
I read the entire parent handbook for KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy, exclaiming "are they ****ing kidding?" in various parts -- well, my compliance level is far below that required to buy in and enroll my kids in the school. On the other hand, my then-seventh-grader read the handbook and begged me to enroll her so she could lead an uprising of the oppressed masses. So we could be exhibit A for non-compliant, except that we're a middle-class family. It stands to reason that there are low-socioeconomic-status families equally inclined to be non-compliant, though.
Forgot one point: For the comparison above, the traditional public school down the street would have to lose the bottom 60% of achievers AND NOT REPLACE THEM, which is the case with KIPP schools.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want to comply with the rules of a charter school, then you shouldn't apply. My take is that the kids in charter schools aren't oppressed masses; they're kids who are working hard to overcome challenges so they can get a good education. The key difference is that those who are actually oppressed work hard and get nothing out at the end.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing with that point, mathteacher. If that's the way KIPP schools operate, that's their right.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you can't fairly compare a school that sheds (by whatever means that occurs) its bottom 60% of achievers to one that does not do that. As a math teacher I imagine that's obvious to you.
Another point is, again, to raise the question: If the traditional public school down the street from KIPP changed not a single one of its educational practices, but merely duplicated the KIPP attrition -- shedding its bottom 60% of achievers -- how would its overall achievement THEN compare to the KIPP school?
And my third point is that this significant fact about the San Francisco Bay Area KIPP schools (the overall attrition) was concealed, downplayed and denied until (as an amateur unpaid layperson blogger) I posted the attrition figures. How can we learn what KIPP is doing successfully if we happen to be unaware of a crucial factor like that?