David Seymour needs a reality check if he thinks that charter schools are not in trouble overseas.
Here is how Save Our Schools sees some of the key evidence:
1. Professor John Hattie, in his quantitative studies, ranks charter schools at number 183 out of the 195 policy interventions that he examined in his paper “The Politics of Distraction”.
Hattie based his analysis on no less than 246 studies and concluded that within a year or so, the “different” school becomes just another school, with all the usual issues that confront all schools.
2. Popular support for charter schools is falling in the United States. A nationwide poll conducted by the “Education Next” magazine, published by Stanford University, found that public support for charter schools has fallen by 12 percentage points, with similar drops evident among both self-described Republicans and self-described Democrats.
3. The experience in New Orleans is that the locals do not believe that the charter school miracle has worked for them. This editorial by the African American newspaper, the New Orleans Tribune, in November 2017 doesn’t pull any punches:
“It’s been 12 years since our schools were hijacked. And 12 years later, many of them are performing just as poorly as they were before they were stolen. To learn that charter operators set up goals they knew were unattainable just to get their charters approved and their hands on public money and facilities is indefensible. Unless and until these pilfering reformers are ready to admit what they did and that it was wrong and then actually return public schools to real local control without charter organizations and unelected boards that come with them under the current model of return anything else they have to say sounds pretty much like sounding brass and tinkling cymbals—a whole bunch of noise.”
4. David Seymour mentions the CREDO studies but fails to mention their main finding.
In the CREDO 2013 nationwide study, less than one hundredth of one percent of the variation in test performance is explainable by charter school enrolment. Specifically, students in charter schools were estimated to score approximately 0.01 standard deviations higher on reading tests and 0.005 standard deviations lower on math tests than their peers in traditional public schools. “With a very large sample size, nearly any effect will be statistically significant,” the reviewers, Maul and McClelland, conclude, “but in practical terms these effects are so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial.”
The reality is simple: there is no genuine educational merit in the charter school model. As John Hattie observes, “these new forms of schools usually start with fanfare, with self-selected staff (and sometime selected students) and are sought by parents who want “something better”. But the long-term effects lead to no differences when compared with public schools.”
~ Bill Courtney, SOSNZ
Research conducted by three independent research institutions looked into online charter schools, and their findings were released in October 2015.
The press release, with links to the full report, is here.
Report findings conclude that:
“…students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools.”
Referring specifically to the question of whether the schools had helped students from low socio-economic backgrounds and/or those from minority groups, the report states that:
“This pattern of weaker growth remained consistent across racial-ethnic subpopulations and students in poverty.”
Mathematica’s analysis found:
• Student–driven, independent study is the dominant mode of learning in online charter schools, with 33 percent of online charter schools offering only self-paced instruction
• Online charter schools typically provide students with less live teacher contact time in a week than students in conventional schools have in a day
• Maintaining student engagement in this environment of limited student-teacher interaction is considered the greatest challenge by far, identified by online charter school principals nearly three times as often as any other challenge
• Online charter schools place significant expectations on parents, perhaps to compensate for limited student-teacher interaction, with 43, 56, and 78 percent of online charters at the high school, middle, and elementary grade levels, respectively, expecting parents to actively participate in student instruction
The Mathematica report concludes:
“Challenges in maintaining student engagement are inherent in online instruction, and they are exacerbated by high student teacher ratios and minimal student-teacher contact time, which the data reveal are typical of online charter schools nationwide. These findings suggest reason for concern about whether the sector is likely to be effective in promoting student achievement.”
CREDO (Stanford University)’s report concluded that:
“While findings vary for each student, the results in CREDO’s report show that the majority of online charter students had far weaker academic growth in both math and reading compared to their traditional public school peers. To conceptualize this shortfall, it would equate to a student losing 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in math, based on a 180-day school year.”
In other words, most students lost the equivalent of just under half a year’s learning in reading and made absolutely no progress in maths at all during an entire school year.
The research was funded by The Walton Foundation, which has funded a huge drive for reform. Even so, they couldn’t find much of a positive spin to put on the findings, concluding only that the research is valuable as:
“[k]nowing the facts helps parents, educators, policymakers, and funders make smarter, more informed decisions that benefit children.”
I do hope policymakers proposing the Communities of Online Learning (COOLs) in New Zealand have read the reports thoroughly and are indeed using this information to make better and more informed decisions. Sadly, at this stage, we have no evidence that this is the case.
You will find the press release and linked full reports here.
~ Dianne Khan, SOSNZ
Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net
As ever, it’s been a busy week as in the wonderful world of education.
NZ Charter Schools featured heavily (and were most definitely charters and not partnership schools, which rather implies Hekia’s tanty last week had little impact.
It was announced that Catherine Isaac is as to be in charge of deciding who will be allowed to set up charter schools, which drew plenty of gasps and criticism as she had also been chair of the charter schools working group. Most of us weren’t surprised at all.
US Charter Schools were also in the news thanks to the latest CREDO report. My favourite part was where the Herald and others trumpeted that charters were doing better than public schools. What it actually said was that cahrter school students were about the same level in maths and on average eight days ahead in reading. Oh I did laugh. Eight. Days. So, about the same then.
“I don’t think eight days is a whole lot,” said CREDO research manager Devora Davis of the charter school students’ reading edge. “There’s a lot of variation across the states. It’s a national average.”
Twenty years down the line and the best that magical charter schools can manage is that they are achieving about the same as public schools. Hardly good value for money given the cost.
Too many teachers – Also in the news was the fact that there are too many teachers applying for too few jobs, with up to 100 applicants per job in some areas.
Are too many teachers being trained for the jobs available? It certainly seems that way. Maybe the powers that be are expecting a lot of resignations…
Also to consider is the impact of over-supply on teachers with more experience? And will many of the new graduates end up working abroad, or even leaving the profession before they begin? So much for the teacher shortage we were warned of not long ago…
Funding for special needs students is still a hot topic, particularly with parents of special needs children. The news that decile ten private schools were far more likely to apply for and receive funding to help special needs students take exams hit many a raw nerve.
No-one would wish to deny high decile students the help they need, but it does lead to questions about the system when so many lower decile school students that apply for help don’t get it and – equally disconcerting – a huge proportion of low decile schools don’t even apply for the help.
What else? National Standards, PaCT, Badass Teachers, and Christchurch schools have also loomed large this week, but I think that’s enough reading for anyone, so I shall leave it there.
Happy reading, happy thinking.
They are mighty pigged off, that’s why.
This Saturday, 13th April, thousands of teachers, parents, students and other supporters up and down New Zealand will march to protest some very disconcerting things that are afoot in GodZone.
What are we protesting? Well I’m glad you asked.
Charter schools: The government is hell bent on bringing in charter schools despite massive resistance and rafts of evidence that they just do not improve achievement, least of all for minority groups. They are pushing an ideology that will privatise public schools. No amount of questioning elicits from the government or Catherine Isaac any answers on just how charters will improve anything.
They have no answers – there are no answers. The evidence is very firmly against them.
Community involvement is not guaranteed in charter schools (goodbye BOT), teachers can be untrained, money paid to run the schools can be skimmed off as profit. That’s your tax $$$ going not to resources of trained staff or even to pay for the building – just taken out as profit by the business owner. Nice.
The largest study of charter schools, by CREDO, showed that 47% of children did worse in the charter than in the local public school. Only 17% did better. Is that worth the cost, both financially and to communities? I think not.
National Standards and Testing: Teachers test all the time – we have to, to know where kids are and where to take them next. Tests are best if acted on speedily by the teacher, to inform their practice. National standards do nothing to inform teachers – indeed they eat up time best spent teaching or doing more useful testing. National Standards do not look at the progress a child has (or has not) made, it merely pegs them against a standard that has been deemed to be about right for their age. This is of no use to the child, to the parents, or to the teacher. Each student is different – what matters most is not where they are in relation to their peers but how they are progressing.
Add to this the growing and very real concerns that the tests used to determine students’ levels are faulty and are giving inflated results, and we have a huge, huge problem.
Teachers’ Pay and Conditions: You might think this is about Novopay; it’s not. The Secretary of Education wants authority to change teachers’ pay and work conditions without consultation. Like you turning up to work and finding your contract had been rewritten and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nice eh? Why would the SoE want to do that, you ask? Most likely so that performance pay can be brought in.
Performance pay is an anathema to teaching. By its very nature, teaching is collaborative, it means working in a team to get the best for the students. The minute performance pay rears its head, that begins to change. Why share your resources with someone who just got a pay rise when you got none? Why agree to have more than your fair share of the trickier students if it might impact your wages? Where it has been implemented, abroad, it has lead to some desperate teachers exaggerating test scores, and so on. It’s human nature, and has been documented widely by many reliable researchers, including those at the OECD. We just don’t want that. We want to continue working together as a team within our school and with other schools in the wider community for the kids.
Christchurch school closures and mergers: The schools in Christchurch just did not get a fair hearing. Information was and still is being withheld by the authorities, preventing schools from being able to put up accurate arguments against the proposals. Dame Beverley Wakem has deemed the Christchurch schools closures and mergers consultation process to be questionable enough to warrant an investigation. No-one is arguing nothing needed to change post-quake. But even schools with growing roles and good quality buildings and sites have been earmarked to go. It makes no sense.
Christchurch has been bullied, there is no other term for it. And teachers do not like bullies.
It’s time to say NO.
It’s time to insist it remains about the children and not about ideology.
It’s time to demand that changes are research based and not done on the whim of a one-man political party.
It’s time to include community MORE in schools, not less.
Join us – come and show your support.
We give them our tax dollars.
They spend it wherever they want.
And, well, that’s it.
They do not have to account for where the money goes
– no public accounts
– no Board of Trustees
– and they do not have to be answerable under the Official Information Act.
With that in mind, it doesn’t take a PhD to work out why they are so appealing to some sectors, but just in case this is all new to you, let me make it plain…
PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT
You might be thinking that charter schools do better for kids, and that the money is well spent and the secrecy and skimming off of money as profit is all worthwhile if it gets kids a better education.
As Prof Peter O’Connor said “Charter schools are part of an international Right-wing attack on progressive and humanist traditions of education… The attack is not driven by a genuine desire to remedy the ills of the education system, but by the desire to create a cheaper teaching force, one that is shackled by narrow-minded, test-based accountability measures, and one that has less union power to fight back.” Source.
Oh I could go on all night (and in my head, I do), but you get the drift: Undervalued teachers, dollar signs flashing left, right and centre, and the kids caught in the middle.
Do you truly think handing schools over to money-makers and marginalising educators will help our students learn?
Does this really and truly sound like the answer to you?
Are NZ Charter Schools A Done Deal?
So, I just got my grubby mits on a copy of a rather interesting document signed by the Johns Key and Banks that has some very interesting things to say about the changes to New Zealand’s education system.
It tells me (I feel with a fanfare and maybe a drum roll intro) that “National and ACT agree to establish an implementation group comprising a private sector chair, and private sector, business, iwi and community representatives along with government officials to develop the proposal. They also agree to ensure it is implemented within this Parliamentary term.”
– Note the term implementation group – not a group to investigate whether it is a good (or sane) proposal, but one to help implement it. Rather as if it’s a foregone conclusion.
– Note there is no mention of any educational representative in the group at all – not one. A totally new way of educating our children and not one teacher, professor, principal or teacher aide is on the panel. Really? I mean, is it just me, or is that just plain crazy?
– Note they were focused on pushing this through right from the get-go. This document is from 2011.
Christchurch, South Auckland and “Other Areas of Low Educational Performance”
As for the oft-repeated “we are listening and “nothing is set in stone” assertions of Hekia Parata and Lesley Longstone regarding the sweeping proposals in Christchurch, this document says quite clearly that “A series of charters would initially be allocated in areas such as South Auckland and Christchurch.”
The document also states that “Initially the system will be implemented in areas such as South Auckland and central/eastern areas of Christchurch. Once successfully established, and as fiscal conditions permit, the system would be extended to other areas of low educational performance.” First of all, I am not at all happy about the use of the word ‘will’, again implying this is a done deal. Secondly, is Eastern Christchurch really an area of low educational performance? And even it it were, how will charter schools with untrained staff and a management focused on money-making be the answer to improving things for those children?
And remember, this document is dated December 2011, well before the Christchurch proposals were laid out for schools and the public.
Does that sound like genuine consultation to you?
Just what is really going on here?
But Our Charter Schools Will Be Modelled On Successful, Fabulous Overseas Ones, Right?
The NAct document tells us that “The [charter school] approach is modelled on successful international examples such as the KIPP schools in the US and to some extent on the system of ‘free’ schools currently being introduced in the UK.”
Seriously, NAct is proposing a model of schools to deal with our most disadvantaged and poorly performing students that is known to have very serious flaws.
Tell me again how this will help them?
Just How DO Charters Achieve Their Miracles?
I have yet to hear one single thing from NAct explaining just HOW exactly charters will improve things. It’s not an unreasonable thing to ask. What is it that charters will do that public schools cannot? What miraculous methods will they employ?
The reason I am so curious is that in the USA, children in charter schools have about a 17% chance of getting a better education in a charter but a 37% chance of getting a WORSE one.   This year, in England, exam passes for English and Maths were better in public schools than in the new Academies.
KIPP schools get some great write ups in research, and on the face of it they do fairy well, but that’s not the whole story. As Diane Ravitch and Gerald Coles point out, “the research KIPP relies on [to prove they are doing so well] was funded by corporations and foundations that have previously given KIPP millions of dollars.”  Hardly what you might call unbiased research then?
Coles asks: “Can there be any bias in research bankrolled by the corporate contributors of the very company whose product the researchers were expected to validate? We are all familiar with the long history of industry-supported research, such as that of tobacco, drug, auto, and coal companies, all conducted by credentialed researchers, all of whom invariably produced findings that supposedly confirmed the value and safety of the products they were paid to investigate. This research on KIPP schools can be described in various ways, but “independent” surely has to take at least second place to “KIPP-funders funded research.”
The unbiased, independent research is not nearly as positive about charters, be they KIPP or otherwise.
So, if NAct is telling us charters will improve things here, I want to see some good, hard INDEPENDENT facts explaining how.
But Bad Charters Are Shut Down, Eh?
Newsweek observed that “charter schools are laboratories where educational ideas are tested. If a charter school is failing after three to five years, it is supposed to be closed down, freeing up a slot for another educational entrepreneur.”  This is worrying. What if your child is in a failing school for the whole 3-5 years it is experimenting away merrily?
And even after they are identified, poorly performing charter school are not always shut – Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) report shows that whilst the charter schools movement has been good at starting up new schools, they have not been good at closing those that are failing. So they might carry on for a long, long time, producing poor results and disadvantaging their students.
How is that any better than the system we have now? It addresses nothing.
Do you want your child to be in an experimental school, possibly with untrained staff, while the school’s sponsors (not necessarily anything to do with education at all) see if their unproven ideas will work?
No, me neither.
Don’t sit by an passively let this happen – you will live to regret it, and your children doubly so.
DO SOMETHING: Make a submission to parliament
Sources and further reading:
 National-ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement (2011) – http://www.act.org.nz/national-act-confidence-and-supply-agreement
 Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Is_Power_Program
 Student Characteristics and Achievement in 22 KIPP Middle Schools KIPP Schools – http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/KIPP_fnlrpt.pdf
 A Challenge to KIPP – http://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/23/a-challenge-to-kipp/
 Standford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) reports on Charter Schools – http://credo.stanford.edu
 Understanding Charter Schools – Newsweek – http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/06/13/understanding-charter-schools.html
 “Fifteen percent of KIPP students leave each year, five times the rate of the school districts from which the organization draws students, the study found, citing federal data. Forty percent of black males depart KIPP from sixth- to eighth-grade and more low-performing kids leave and aren’t replaced.” – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/-waiting-for-superman-kipp-schools-leave-kids-out-study-finds.html
 Education Amendment Bill – NZ Charter (or Partnership) Schools (see Factsheet 2) – https://saveourschoolsnz.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/education-amendment-bill-nz-charter-or-partnership-schools/
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid. Charter schools may sound like a miracle from heaven, but a little research shows the truth is not nearly as rosy.
Here’s just a selection of the articles I’ve found that make me concerned about charter schools:
MORE GIRAFFES, THAT’S WHAT WE NEED
“If u posted a blog about the need 4 more giraffes in elementary school lunch rooms, 57 charter advocates would post comments about charters.
Charter cheerleaders are relentless; evangelical soldiers in the reform wars, they are absolutely convinced that charters are laboratories full of innovation and creativity.
Read more here
“A West Oakland church school that makes its students ask for money at BART stations appears to have vastly inflated its enrollment (sic) numbers to collect extra taxpayer funding, some of which goes to a teacher who former students say physically abused them and other children.And for years, St. Andrew Missionary Baptist Church and private school has operated with virtually no government oversight despite repeated red flags. The K-12 school is run by Robert Lacy, 79, a pastor who pleaded guilty in 2007 to theft of government money for taking his deceased father’s Social Security payments.”
Read more here.
COMPARING APPLES AND BANANAS AND DECIDING THE MANGO IS BEST
“It’s New Jersey School Choice Week. Gov. Chris Christie signed a proclamation encouraging all citizens to “join the movement for educational reform.”
Or, at least, his brand of reform, one that includes cutting $1 billion from traditional public schools while spending taxpayer money on independent schools that have somehow failed to enroll New Jersey’s neediest children, those with handicaps, language problems, and very low income…”
Read more here.
OVER-TESTING IS DAMAGING EDUCATION
“Carol Burris, who was recently named to the honor roll as a hero of public education, wrote a letter to President Obama. Carol understands how excessive testing is harming students and demoralizing teachers. She warns the President how this policy–at the heart of Race to the Top–will do increasing damage as it is institutionalized.”
Read more here.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY’S RESEARCH (CREDO)
“The group portrait shows wide variation in performance. The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.”
Read more here.
AND FOR HEAPS MORE LINKS SO YOU CAN RESEARCH YOURSELF, MAYBE START HERE…
“Charter schools have taken on an almost mythic quality. Touted by politicians, the subject of Hollywood films, the darlings of Wall Street: listening to the marketing, you would think charter schools were the saviors of American children…”
Read more here.
ARE YOU WORRIED YET?
Little or no accountability, weaker kids dumped, schools as businesses massaging the figures to keep the business going, huge attrition rates, and for all that they still don’t do very well.
Whatever you believe, you owe it to your children and yourself to learn more about charter schools before it’s too late for New Zealand.