The Phoenix Network:
 
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 

Boston public-school apartheid?

Think busing was a problem in this town? Some are labeling charter schools as Boston's newest educational battleground
By CHRIS FARAONE  |  October 10, 2009

0910_charter_main

At the Edward W. Brooke School in Roslindale — a kindergarten-to-eighth-grade public charter school — the push to advance graduates to elite secondary programs begins in fifth grade. That means students are routinely steered toward such private and parochial schools as Milton Academy and Catholic Memorial. How about your standard-issue Boston public district high schools, such as English (in Jamaica Plain) and Madison Park High (in Roxbury)? Almost never. In fact, quite the opposite: Brooke students are told explicitly by advisors and through literature that teenagers who attend Boston district high schools are "unmotivated," "disorganized," and uninterested in education.

The dismal reputation of Boston's district system might be a sad reality of institutions filled with children from broken and low-income families. But according to teachers and administrators who work within the traditional order, charter schools are only exacerbating the problem by using tax revenue to help cycle promising city students out of the district system. 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.

Weighing both sides of the school-choice spat, two things seem certain with regard to Boston charters: 1) many are unfit to accommodate needy, foreign-language-speaking, or poorly behaved students, yet 2) they have proven capable of launching proficient learners onto extraordinary life trajectories. Indeed, the charter movement has by all measures replaced busing as the hot-button issue in a city that will always be the national poster child for operatic battles over public education.

Dropout factories
At Roxbury Prep, a charter serving grades six through eight, co-director Will Austin insists that placement counselors do not badmouth such destinations as Dorchester High or Madison Park; still, not a single one of the 54 2009 Prep grads matriculated to Boston public district schools. It's a similar case at Excel Academy in East Boston, where more than two-thirds of students last year fled the district system for private and parochial pastures following commencement. The numbers are similar throughout the Boston public charter schools that terminate in eighth grade.

The charter-school conundrum is hardly isolated to the Boston area, where mayoral candidate Michael Flaherty is hell-bent on vast charter expansion, while incumbent Mayor Tom Menino is reticent to surrender municipal funds to programs that do not answer to his school committee. (In June, Menino did adjust his long-held anti-charter stance and vowed to turn low-performing district schools into alternative programs.)

At the federal level, President Barack Obama infuriated teacher unions (which oppose charter schools because, they claim, they divert funds away from the majority of students) by championing charter growth in his first education address this past March. Statewide, Governor Deval Patrick recently proposed legislation to double the number of charter seats across the Commonwealth to more than 50,000, inciting hundreds to rally at the State House, both in support of and opposition to his plan.

Back in Boston, a September 16 report by the adamantly anti-charter Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) fueled the crossfire, labeling all Boston public charter schools as "dropout factories" and accusing administrators of practicing "selective out-migration."

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
Related: , , , More more >
  Topics: News Features , Deval Patrick, Barack Obama, Education,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
Comments
Re: 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.
By charterschoolindependent on 10/08/2009 at 3:12:36
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.
By charterschoolindependent on 10/08/2009 at 3:25:43
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
.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
By charterschoolindependent on 10/08/2009 at 3:25:57
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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
By lb2009 on 10/08/2009 at 12:35:29
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.
By ObservingBoston on 10/11/2009 at 12:31:49
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.
By ObservingBoston on 10/11/2009 at 12:32:10
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.
By tchambers69 on 10/13/2009 at 1:58:27
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.
By tchambers69 on 10/13/2009 at 1:59:02
Re: Boston public-school apartheid?
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.  
By tchambers69 on 10/13/2009 at 2:20:06

Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY CHRIS FARAONE
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   GROWN MAN RAP  |  October 13, 2009
    Del the Funky Homosapien and Tame One. Canibus and Keith Murray. AG and OC. Buckshot and KRS. Masta Ace and Edo G. These aren’t comments on a Facebook thread asking for hip-hop dream duos. They’re real pairs of united legends who are giving disenchanted heads unprecedented reasons to put aside the throwbacks and enjoy music recorded this millennium.
  •   BOSTON PUBLIC-SCHOOL APARTHEID?  |  October 10, 2009
    At the Edward W. Brooke School in Roslindale — a kindergarten-to-eighth-grade public charter school — the push to advance graduates to elite secondary programs begins in fifth grade.
  •   MR. MAGIC, R.I.P.  |  October 07, 2009
    By the time this goes to press, DJs and designers will be mixing and manufacturing mix-tapes and shirts commemorating Mr. Magic, the seminal New York radio jockey who died of a heart attack at 53 in Brooklyn this past Friday.
  •   INTERVIEW: DAVID CROSS  |  October 07, 2009
    "When people thought of stand-up in 1987, they thought of a guy with a skinny red tie and a jacket saying, 'What's the deal with blah, blah, blah?' "
  •   FREUDIAN TRIP  |  October 06, 2009
    Hip-hop is faker than Vince McMahon's business plan and tan combined. Pussy-whipped MCs who sling Whoppers rhyme about bagging blow and smacking ho's; even cats who actually do poison their communities exaggerate their hood credentials.

 See all articles by: CHRIS FARAONE

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group