Uphams Corner and the Challenge Index

I've been thinking a bit about Mike Mayo's piece in the Globe last Sunday, which is linked below.

In it, he writes: "Today, our special-education population hovers around 40 percent. Low-income families represent 93 percent of our population. These levels are far beyond what the governor has proposed, far beyond what the Boston Public Schools serves. Is this failure? Was this "brand" a mistake? We didn't set out to specialize in serving these populations; it just turned out that way."

Mr. Mayo is correct that his school has a difficult population to teach. This year, Uphams Corner has the highest Challenge Index score of any charter middle or middle/high school in Boston. (Numbers courtesy of the DOE).

And yet, it hasn't always been that way. In the early years of the school, Uphams Corner's had a high CI, but one that is comparable to other charter schools in the city. The UCCS population has been getting more and more challenging every year.



Why is that? Mike Mayo seems to think it's because his school attracted "Challege Index" parents. That's one way a percentage can increase. My guess is that it "didn't just turn out that way." My guess is that many non-"Challenge Index" parents (the ones who have a better chance of navigating school choice), fled as soon as they realized how unsuccessful UCCS was. Remember, Uphams had issues retaining teachers and kids, scoring well on tests, and maintaining orderly clasrooms. And of course, once this process started, I'm sure it became a vicious cycle.

Challenge Index

Seems like everyone in the blogosphere is always arguing about the student populations of charter schools - whether they have easier to teach or harder to teach populations than their sending districts. Problem is that there seems to be no consistency in these arguments. I figure we all need one number that combines that reflects the "hard to teach"populations. Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen one out there. So I thought I'd come up with something that I'm currently calling "Challenge Index."

The big arguments seems to be about 3 groups: low-income, special education and English language learners, so I thought I'd include those in the index. Here's the system, for what it's worth:

% Limited English Proficient + % Free and Reduced Lunch + % Special Education = CI

The benefit of the system is that it's simple. The flaws...well, there are a lot. But since this is the data is easy to get to on the DOE website, I'm going with it.

First post to include CI data to come soon.

Mike Mayo Responds

Mike Mayo, founder of Uphams Corner, reflected on the school in an Op-Ed in today's Globe. No time to comment now, but here's the link. More to follow later.

To Fill or Not

caroline, a blogger from San Francisco who is vocally opposed to the KIPP schools there (and the one outside commenter on my blog - thanks!), is upset that some (many?) charter schools don't replace kids who leave the school. I can see her point, especially as it affects comparisons to traditional district schools who contend with new students over the course of the school year.

I know that some charters in Boston don't take any kids after the first few months of their intake year; others take kids only during the first few years, and then not afterwards. I can't speak to the specific policies of each school.

I think if you take the view that charter schools make this decision only to boost their scores, I can see why the district schools complain. Not only are their jobs made harder by this decision, but it may inflate the scores of the charters that use this policy.

However, let's look at this policy from the perspective of the students and teachers in the school.
Does it make the jobs of the teachers, who are already teaching a challenging group of kids, a little bit easier? Probably. Does it mean that the kids who stick around get a better education than if their classes were repopulated? Probably. Would district schools choose this policy if they could? Probably.

Let's look at a specific example. Let's say a group of kids entered a school in 5th grade with an average DRA level of about 3rd grade. Let's say that by the beginning of 7th grade, they're reading at a 6th grade level. They've made a year and a half of progress each year. What happens when you add a 7th grader into the school who's reading at a third grade level? Is that good for him? Is it good for his classmates?

Here's what I think. Adding a couple of new students early on in a cohort's time in the school tends not to hurt it too much. It's when schools take in a lot of new students into a cohort (often for financial reasons), that schools and their students (new and old) tend to struggle. Without naming names, I can think of a couple of schools in which this has caused problems over the past couple of years. One of those schools is generally strong; the other is weak. Both schools were weakened partially by taking a lot of new kids.

In the end, it's really a balancing act between what's best for the kids in the school and the school itself, and the needs of the kids on the outside looking in. Since I dedicate a ton of my time to the student I already have, and they have a ton of their own issues, I'd say that I have to side with them and not let it others. But I'm open to persuasion.

What do other people think?

Another Reason Kids Leave

I was just reminded of another reason kids leave charter schools. To go to other charter schools!

Sometime, parents like the idea of charter schools but the fit isn't perfect. I know kids who have been pulled out to go to other charter schools because of behavior policy issues (uniforms, detentions, etc.), because of retention, or because their kid gets into one of the higher achieving schools. (By the way, proof that parents don't use academic achievement as their only criteria of for picking a school, I know of parents at my school who have chosen to pull their kids from a high achieving charter to send them to Uphams Corner, and vice versa).

Here's a second reason I can think of: since there isn't a single charter school in Boston (proper, that is - Prospect Hill in Cambridge/Somerville is K-12) that serves all grades, in many cases parents need to find another place for their kids to go next. If parents like charter schools, but the school doesn't have a middle school or high school, they will pull their kid out of the original school to go to the school that will take them further along in grades, even if that means leaving before the school finishes. With waiting list spots so hard to come by, parents often feel they can't give up a chance to get in as soon as they are offered a spot. Here are some examples, kids being pulled from Boston Renaissance (K-6) to go to Excel (5-8) so their kids are guaranteed a spot through 8th grade, kids being pulled from Edward Brooke (K-8) to go to Boston Collegiate (5-12), MATCH (7-12) or Boston Prep (6-12), so their kid is guaranteed a spot in a charter high school.

Study This

Here's a study I would like to see done that might help us all get a better perspective on the attrition rates and causes at various charter schools. For every student who enters a charter school, get the following information:

1. Basic info - including LEP, SPED, SES, etc
2. Previous school(s) attended.
3. Interviews with parents, teachers re: students skill levels, performance levels, behavior, parental motivation, reasons that parent chose to leave previous school and enroll in the charter schools.
4. Previous assessment data.
5. Entering skill level - given by a neutral party. Say the DRA for reading and Stanford 10 for math.
6. Follow students during time at school - gather data on homework completion, grades, behavior (detentions, suspensions), MCAS scores over time.
7. When kids leave or graduate, record reason from perspective of administrators, teachers, and parents.

Obviously the methodology is ridiculously intensive, but the study might help us to understand where kids are going and why. Of course, charter schools could collect much of this data themselves.

Solvency = Greediness?

The AP has a piece today about an aggregate audit that was performed on the state's charter schools. The study finds that 46 of 57 charter schools are running surpluses, which to me seems like a positive thing. Of course, charter opponents immediately argued that charter schools are being irresponsible.

"Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, said the report shows charter schools are "stockpiling large reserves" when other public schools are struggling to make ends meet.

"It cries out for reform of the charter school funding system," Koocher said. "If they've got money to give back, why don't they give it back to the people they took it from."

Seems to me that charter schools need to be financially solvent to survive. It's not only good budgetary policy, but it means that financial mismangement can't be used as a reason to shut them down.

How is it that charter schools are running surpluses when everyone else is running deficits? Is it because of lower teacher costs (non-union salaries, benefits, etc.)? Is it because of fundraising? I'd be interested to see what percentage of the aggregate surplus ($91.5M) is due to fundraising, and what amount comes from other cost savings.

Shall I Compare Thee to a BPS School?

We all know that when charter schools are compared to district schools, district folk cry foul. Arguing that charter schools "cream" the best students, or parents, or whatnot, they liken comparing BPS and successful charter schools like Boston Collegiate, Roxbury Prep, or Excel Academy to comparing apples and oranges. They argue that these comparisons make them look artificially bad, since their kids are harder to help to succeed to begin with.

I have two thoughts on this.

1) If successful charter schools were barely doing better than the district, I think this would be a better argument. However, successful charter schools are leaving BPS in the dust. I don't think that small differences in student populations can account for major differences in test scores.

Case in point: In 8th grade, 34% of BPS student scored Advanced + Proficient in math last year. Here are the percentages for some of the highest achieving Boston charter schools - Roxbury Prep (86%), Excel Academy (88%), and Boston Prep (93%). They're almost doing 3x as well. I doubt that those students would have been doing as well if they had stayed in BPS. However, I know that some people will never believe in the power of these schools if this is the argument that's put forth. So here's a more powerful one:

2) When the successful charter schools that I'm familiar with in Boston look at MCAS results, comparisons with BPS and the state averages are almost an afterthought. They assume that they're going to do better than these marks. If they don't achieve at this level, it's considered to be a major problem.

Instead, they compare themselves to wealthy, suburban districts like Weston, Wellesley, etc. They believe that only when urban students are consistently doing as well as their wealthy, white peers that we can start talking about the achievement gap being erased. (Whether test scores can really satisfy that condition is another story for another day.) However, I think everyone in urban education should cheer when schools populated with majority low-income and minority students are doing as well or better than kids in high-achieving suburban schools.

I think successful urban charter schools would be better served comparing their students to suburban schools than to their district peers down the street. I think it's a more compelling apples to oranges comparison, and it diffuses one of the main pillars of the creaming argument.

Creaming in Boston Charter Schools

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.

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.

Codman Academy and the Huntington Theater

A senior at Codman Academy is featured in Adrian Walker's column in today's Globe, which highlights Codman's affiliation with the Huntington Theater.

Roxbury Prep in EdWeek

Roxbury Prep is featured in an article in the February 4th edition of Education Week. You need to be a subscriber to get online access the whole piece (which is highlighted in the Marshall Memo this week).

Are You Out There?

Not sure if anyone is reading this blog yet, or if I'm effectively talking to myself. If so, please consider leaving a quick comment so I can get a sense of readership. Also, if you have any thoughts on possible future posts, I'm open to suggestions.

Thanks!
mathteacher

Charter School Basketball Star

Nice story in the Globe today (front page, no less) about a Springfield charter school student who is now the leading scorer in MA girls basketball history.

Schools Matter: My Way or the Highway

Jim Horn, a professor at Cambridge College, writes a blog called Schools Matter. In it, he rails against charter schools, KIPP, TFA, etc. arguing that they exist to serve the needs of their racist, business-centric, foundation-supported masters. A fine piece of arch-liberal demagoguery. I like it because it pisses me off and makes me think. He writes:

"This space explores issues in public education policy, and it advocates for a commitment to and a re-examination of the democratic purposes of schools. If there is some urgency in the message, it is due to the current reform efforts that are based on a radical re-invention of education, now spearheaded by a psychometric blitzkrieg of "metastasizing testing" aimed at dismantling a public education system that took almost 200 years to build."

Professor Horn is from the school of thought that says that until poverty, recism and inequity are eradicated in this country, the public schools are doomed. I would agree with much of that.
Unfortunately, he also seems to believe that we in education should stay the course until those problems are fixed. I agree we need to fix those problems. However, I disagree that we should wait until they're fixed to educate urban kids.

I want my students, the ones facing oppression, racism, classism, etc. to have opportunites to have a better education than their parents. Hell, I want them to have a better education than I had. But for that to happen, they need to be able to read and write and calculate. I, for one, think that my school and others like it are making it happen for a group of kids who wouldn't have had that opportunities in the district schools. It's sad that Professor Horn doesn't think that's ok.

(I wonder if he's even been to a charter school before or has even met the dedicated young people who make up Teach for America. Often, I don't think charter school critics have...)

Too MANY IEPs?

A new 6th grade student at our school arrived earlier this year with a massive IEP. He had been an enormous behavior problem at his previous schools - charter and public alike. He had trouble with attentional issues and got in a lot of trouble. One of the goals on his IEP was that he should be able to spend 15 mintues in a classroom without disturbing his peers. Then, we found out that he was reading on a 2nd grade reading level. Not good signs.

Here's the amazing part. The 6th grade team put in place a number of supports, especially around reading. He began getting daily phonics support and started reading "just right books" that were on his reading level. As a result of this attention, he's made massive improvement, improving more than 2 whole grade levels in reading in half of a year. What's more, he hasn't been a behavior problem in the least. It seems to me that many of his behavior problems were the result of being in chaotic schools and having never learned to really be a reader.

My question is this: Did this student really need an IEP? If he had been at our school or a school like it in the earliest days of his education, would he have been on an IEP? I don't know him well enough to know the full story, but you have to wonder.

Charter schools are often critiqued for not having as many IEP students. But maybe, just maybe, district schools have too many -not because of schools choice, but because sometimes kids just need a more structured environment or a little more support than a teacher can provide with 25 kids in a class. I wonder if sometimes students who get labeled in district schools wouldn't really need those labels in a different envirnoment. Not all of them, of course. But maybe enough to make the percentages a little more equitable between district and charter schools.

Globe Editorial: So-So Suggestions from Patrick

On Thursday, the Globe published an editorial commenting on Governor Patrick's charter school proposal from earlier in the week.

Today, they published some of the comments to this piece in the Advice and Dissent feature.

Plight of Hispanic Males

Today's Globe has an article about Latino males in MA, and their struggles in graduating from high school. The article mentions Excel Academy, and the photo that accompanies the article is from an Excel 5th grade classroom. The focus is not primarily about Excel or charters. The anti-immigrant vitriol on the comments page is downright scary.

I'm behind in updating. Hopefully I'll catch up this weekend.

Codman Academy and Junk Food

A piece in today's Globe discusses the paucity of healthy food alternatives in low income communities, where fast food and pork rind-hawking corner stores rule. How does this relate to charter schools? The article is primarily centered on Codman Square, Dorchester, and mentions Codman Academy's focus on healthy alternatives.

Codman in the press again? Why is that? I can think of a couple of reasons.

1. Codman works hard to be a member of its community, actively building partnerships with other local agencies and businesses.
2. Codman has a number of interesting non-traditional programs that get kids out into the community and the larger world.
3. Meg Campbell is a master at drawing positive attention to her school using (1) and (2).

My sense is that press coverage of charter schools in the city is vastly different from school to school. Is this true? And if so, why? Are some schools PR machines? Or are some schools worthy of more attention?