March 3, 2016 11:00 am
Harvard Magazine published an interesting article with fresh thinking about school choice. No blue-sky claims, like the Friedman Foundation. No fear-mingering. Some thoughtful comments about unintended consequences.
“A recent paper models a choice system that assigns schools according to families’ preferences, allotting seats at more sought-after schools by lottery. Parents would compete for access to the best schools, so that each school would not only reflect the socioeconomic mix of the community but also become perfectly equal—and average—in quality, Avery explains. But such a result, the model shows, would encourage wealthy families to abandon the system for better-than-average schools that are either private or in another district—a “flight” phenomenon widely documented already.
“Pathak and Avery also show a second mechanism—the effect of school quality on home prices—that forces flight not by wealthy families, but by the poor. “When you introduce school choice, school quality compresses…so the house-price distribution compresses as well,” Pathak says, meaning that low-income families are priced out of their own neighborhoods as the schools in their community improve. Home values reflect differences in school quality so faithfully that prices spike and fall along district boundaries. “You see this at the border between [the Boston public school system] and Brookline…if the houses are almost identical, they’re still very different prices because people perceive the schools to be much higher quality in Brookline,” he explains.
“In reality, though, researchers know that school choice hasn’t worked this way. Because of variation in families’ school preferences, imperfect information, test-based admissions systems that favor advantaged students, and other frictions, cities that have embraced choice systems are very far from producing perfectly equal schools. In some cases, school lotteries do help underserved students gain access to top schools. What, then, of the model? “What happens in practice is, we think, some combination of things,” Avery suggests. Real-life choice systems resemble something between neighborhood schools and a perfect-competition choice system. If schools remain sufficiently unequal, then people can afford to continue to live where they’re living. Says Avery, “It’s sort of a paradox.”
The most elusive yet most important goal is to increase the supply of good schools in every neighborhood.
Posted by dianeravitch
Categories: Education Reform, School Choice
Tags:
Mobile Site | Full Site
Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.
“The most elusive yet most important goal is to increase the supply of good schools in every neighborhood.”
What happens when a good school that has great teachers who know how to teach are working with too many students that are not interested in learning?
In a test based meritocracy, that good school with great teachers would be labeled a failure thanks to the nubmer of students that resist learning.
For a good school with great teachers to succeed in such a world, that community would have to change its environment so more students fall in love with learning instead of resist it.
The only way to achieve that dramatic change would be through a high quality early childhood education program, but if for profit compactness are allowed to be part of that system, then chasing profits might threaten the quality of teaching leading to failure of the early childhood education system.
The evidence is overwhelming that a competitive market system for education doesn’t work. The goal should be to win the at risk students over so they fall in love with learning and reading—not chasing profit and wealth that steals funds from the teaching/learning process.
LikeLike
By Lloyd Lofthouse on March 3, 2016 at 11:14 am
Political correctness aside Lloyd, you speak the truth.
Large scale student outcomes will always be determined
by the *culture of its families/community.
*Culture defined: a way of life of a group of people–the behaviors, beliefs, values, and symbols that they accept, generally without thinking about them, and that are passed along by communication and imitation from one generation to the next.
LikeLike
By RageAgainstTheTestocracy on March 3, 2016 at 8:19 pm
Hello Harvard. Tracking writ large. That is school choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By carolcorbettburris on March 3, 2016 at 11:23 am
Which already occurs due to socio-economic factors.
LikeLike
By Duane Swacker on March 3, 2016 at 2:14 pm
I’m pretty sure all the consequences are intended, the question is by whom?
LikeLike
By Jon Awbrey on March 3, 2016 at 11:24 am
Any sense of moral theory or critical thinking both suppressed by the profit motive.
If it churns out a profit, it must be good.
LikeLike
By John on March 3, 2016 at 12:09 pm
One of the most elusive things is finding more than two interested parties who agree on what is a good school.
LikeLike
By howardat58 on March 3, 2016 at 11:36 am
Ed reform literally gets worse in Ohio every single year.
“If you had the same situation going on with these larger e-schools, then God knows how many are actually participating in the curriculum,” said Senate Minority Leader Joe Schiavoni, D-Boardman. “ That is information we need to figure out immediately.”
They have no idea how many students actually attend anything approaching “school” in the online charters. They have been paying them tens of millions of dollars for 15 years. They looked at ONE school and turned up a million dollars in overpayments, not to mention the fact that hundreds of students were supposedly “in school” but were not.
It is complete and total capture in this state. They are robbing us blind and no one will stop them, because they’re all taking donations from them or working for them after they leave government. Meanwhile, the public schools that 93% of kids attend are completely ignored.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/03/01/lax-attendance-tracking-allows-800000-state-overpayment-to-online-charter-school.html
LikeLike
By Chiara on March 3, 2016 at 11:53 am
Keeping an eye out to what has been happening in Ohio has been a truly painful experience. When Ohio teachers/parents/students first stood up to fight back, trying to expose what was going on with their state’s labor politics, I was so excited — mostly because almost NO ONE was doing anything to support teachers and the art of teaching in my state. My heart has remained there, with everyone in Ohio, even as I’ve had to watch long year after long year of educational insanity.
LikeLike
By ciedie aech on March 3, 2016 at 1:08 pm
Many “choice” charters have moved away from an open lottery to selective criteria status. Even with selective criteria, some schools continue to have high attrition rates with no back filling. This policy creates a separate and unequal education for a chosen few. These selective policies have also been used to gentrify and transform real estate near the central business district of several major cities. These selective charters screen out locals in favor of new middle class arrivals. We have seen this in Hoboken, Philadelphia and Chicago, to name a few.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By retired teacher on March 3, 2016 at 11:55 am
The Harvard faculty should be forced to watch Michael Moore’s new film, “Where to Invade Next”. One of the interviewees explained how all of a nation’s schools, can achieve good outcomes. In 2014, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government placed students with DFER and the Heritage Foundation but, none with groups trying to protect public education. Forcing the people at JFK’s namesake, to watch Moore’s movie, would let them know, knowledge about the disaster that the U.S. oligarchs wreaked on the American people, is spreading and anger is building. Since Harvard’s recent assistance to the oligarchs has been so profound, the public’s rage against the institution, may not be selective in its targeting.
LikeLike
By Linda on March 3, 2016 at 2:14 pm
‘increase the supply of good schools in every neighborhood.’
Not so hard to imagine. Every neighborhood already has a school. We need to turn THOSE into ‘quality’ schools, by providing adequate resources and developing appropriate curriculum/programs for the students who attend. Instead it seems policymakers would prefer to try anything else that is proposed. On Mar 3, 2016 11:01 AM, “Diane Ravitchs blog” wrote:
> dianeravitch posted: “Harvard Magazine published an interesting article > with fresh thinking about school choice. No blue-sky claims, like the > Friedman Foundation. No fear-mingering. Some thoughtful comments about > unintended consequences. “A recent paper models a choic” >
LikeLike
By profesorapinilla on March 3, 2016 at 2:35 pm
Can someone please comment intelligently to the one man who commented on the Harvard magazine website? He is blaming unions for poor school performance.
LikeLike
By Melissa Wlilliams on March 3, 2016 at 4:08 pm
Melissa,
Why don’t you write a comment to the Harvard magazine? Point out that the three top-performing states on NAEP are strong Union states: Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey. Ask about the results from anti-union states.
LikeLike
By dianeravitch on March 3, 2016 at 8:47 pm
“Unintended” is pretty charitable. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
By crunchydeb on March 3, 2016 at 7:20 pm
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
LikeLike
By drext727 on March 4, 2016 at 8:49 am
I posted a response there yesterday which is not appearing. 😦
LikeLike
By crunchydeb on March 4, 2016 at 12:29 pm
I wish I could believe that those advocating charters and vouchers (privatization) truly were doing so because they think that such changes would improve education quality for all. But I do not, not for a minute. The end goal is for billionaires to be able to avoid paying taxes to educate “other people’s children.” They want full privatization. They want high-profit stocks in charter companies. They don’t give a flip about our country, about fueling democracy, and care even less for “those kids.” It is heart-breaking.
Texas is now threatening to close 135 schools within a year. These schools currently serve 70,000 children in 51 public school districts. Almost every one of these schools is around 90% poor and 90% African American and Hispanic. AND most are in property-poor school districts. In other words, they are below the state average in funding. AND on top of that, Texas ranks 49th in the nation on per-pupil expenditures, almost $4,000 below the national average, taking into account regional differences in costs.
In the last session of the legislature they failed to increase funding to a decent level. There were only two bills introduced to impact the effects of poverty on kids–a bill to allocate $1.5 million for a tiny prek initiative and a bill for a very limited pilot of implementing a community schools model. The prek bill passed, but the other one couldn’t even get out of the Senate committee. In contrast, there were over 20 bills to expand or nurture charters. Most passed. Every possible voucher bill was introduced. We were able to stop them in the House, The ALEC “innovation schools” bill passed. The Jeb Bush label of A-F schools passed. And without a miracle the 2017 session will be another nightmare. Texans may wish to look at our Legislator Report Card at http://www.texaskidscantwait.org/media-center. Warning: It’s not a pretty picture.
And a problem bigger than but related to test scores is that more than 60% of our 5.2 million school kids are economically disadvantaged.
“School choice” is expert marketing, not a solution to anything we care about!
LikeLike
By Bonnie Lesley on March 5, 2016 at 2:06 pm
Massachusetts Charter Schools and Local Public Schools are Unequal and Cannot Stand Divided
Unintended consequences:
Charter school laws and regulations are not equal to the local public
schools. Charters operate with unequal financial regulations, and undermine the public, tax based, local school systems.
The original idea of charter schools was to provide a place for education
experimentation that improved education for all students. The 1993 law mandated acceptance for all and laws and regulations followed as in the local public school systems. Teachers agreed to work longer hours but receive the same pay and benefits as the public schools.
We legislated for public teachers to teach in a public charter school.
Horace Mann charters require approval by local school committees and staffing by union teachers paid under the local collective bargained contracts. Why are only 10 of 81 charters, Horace Mann charters?
The other choice is the 81 Commonwealth Charter Schools. Commonwealth
Charter schools require approval by the state and pay and benefits remain outside of collective bargaining. These are contracted on an individual and yearly basis making for a lack of consistency and frequent teacher changes.
The financial regulations between charters and public schools are also unequal. Charter schools keep up to a 25% surplus for future operations. Public school systems have no surplus funds unless they are regional schools.
Regional public school systems keep a 5% surplus.
The ability of charter schools to keep this 25% surplus, gives the charter a
huge advantage over public school finances. Public schools must plan budgets to the exact amounts for any expenditure which are approved by the local school committees and the mayors. Charters do none of the above, because they are financially controlled by state regulations. Charters are essentially state schools for K-12 students without any local control.
Charter schools also keep state money for a student who cannot meet the
charter school regulations and must return to the public school in mid year. After a closer accounting, these students frequently include special education or English as a second language needs. The local public school is left with no money for these returning students because the state already funded the charter school. State financing places charters before local tax funded public
schools.
Melrose Public Schools recently ran into these unequal financial regulations,
when the Melrose School Committee submitted an education budget that exceeded previous budgets. The Mayor and the Board of Aldermen requested and received approval for a Proposition 2 and 1/2 override as a special election. Most of the reasons resulted from money allocated to charters. Last year Melrose Public Schools did not receive $2,457,764 for 258 students attending district charter schools. Because of charters, Melrose has many overcrowded classrooms and a low teacher pay scale that causes the city to loose many of its best new teachers and administrators. Recent racial issues keeps Melrose unable to acquire a more diverse staff. These teachers are scoped up by less charter impacted systems. These ripple effects continue to grow.
An interesting effect of this unequal treatment is the use of the charter
school surplus at the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, (MVRCS). Melrose Public Schools sends 252 students to MVRC. The average 20% surplus allowed MVRCS to build a new indoor swimming pool that the Melrose Public Schools pays MVRCS a fee to use for the Melrose girls swim team. Does the public in Melrose know they are paying two times to keep MVRCS more financially sound than the Melrose Public Schools?
Taking local autonomy from a local public school system is against the whole idea of public education in the United States. Charters rule by a council of
interested persons not elected by a local public, tax funded, process. Yet,
charters receive public tax funds. This is big government reaching into our
public tax pockets to educate our children in what is quickly becoming a
private education at the public expense. Melrose is a good example. Usually,
charters require all students to wear uniforms. If it looks like a private
school, makes its own rules, decides who may attend, it is not the public
school we all attended.
The governor’s new plan to make more charter schools undermines the tax
based funding of local public schools. In his testimony, he stated the
statistics of only 81 charters out of 1900 public schools. In the
legislation, he wants to make Horace Mann and Commonwealth Charter schools join together, but the Horace Mann charter teachers loose their collective bargaining rights.
Commonwealth Charter schools have a 25% surplus, local public schools do not. Charter schools have no collective bargaining rights, local public schools do. How long will we allow charter schools to make inroads that destroy our ability to provide the best local, tax controlled, public education in the United States? Local public schools divided by charter schools cannot stand.
Wtobin48@verizon.net
LikeLike
By William Tobin on March 17, 2016 at 5:30 pm