Archives for category: Boston

The credit rating agency Moody’s informed cities in Massachusetts that the recent vote not to add more charter schools was good for their credit ratings and will help key their borrowing costs lower. Voters defeated Question 2 by 62-38%. It won approval only in a few urban districts. The vote against the proposal was highest in districts with charters, where funding for public schools had decreased.

“The decision of Massachusetts voters to reject a ballot question expanding charter schools is “credit positive” for urban cities like Springfield and Boston, the rating agency Moody’s said Tuesday.

“The result is credit positive for urban local governments because it will allow those cities and towns to maintain current financial operations without having to adjust to increased financial pressure from charter school funding,” Moody’s wrote in a report.

“The ballot question would have allowed state officials to approve up to 12 new charter schools a year outside of an existing cap. The current cap ensures that school districts spend no more than 9 percent of their budgets, or 18 percent in low-performing districts, paying for student tuition to charter schools. That limits the number of charter schools that can grow or expand in urban areas like Boston and Springfield, resulting in waiting lists.

“A central part of the debate over charter school expansion was funding. When a child attends a charter school, the state money to educate that child goes to the charter school, although the district gets reimbursed for the first years to smooth over the transition costs. Opponents of charter school expansion say the funding formula took money from the traditional public schools, hurting struggling districts, even though the loss of students did not affect the schools’ fixed costs.

“Moody’s wrote in its report that since 2010, cities like Boston, Fall River, Lawrence and Springfield have seen charter school spending grow by 83 percent even as overall spending on public education in the state grew by only 15 percent.”

Jersey Jazzman, aka Mark Weber, updated his commentary on Question 2 after noting a tweet by David Leonhardt about his original post. Leonhardt said that JJ’s analysis was “based on a falsehood.” Leonhardt said the study in question compared lottery winners to lottery losers. JJ said that you can’t generate from a select sample to the entire population of Boston public school students.

A familiar line in charter school promotional ads is that thousands of children are stuck in “failing public schools” while on wait lists to get into charters. Anytime a reporter digs in, the claim is not quite true.

Isaiah Thompson is an investigative reporter for WGBH in Boston. He heard the claim by pro-charter advocates of Question 2 that 33,000 students are on charter wait lists. So he checked the facts and found that the wait lists had duplicate names, children who had applied to more than one school, children who had been accepted in a charter school but whose names remained on the list, and children who were no longer waiting.

He discovered there are also wait lists to get into preferred Boston public schools, but no one ever talks about them.

Arne Duncan appeared at a DFER event in Boston to lend his support to Question 2, which would increase the number of privately controlled charter schools by 12 per year forever. The bill was written by the CEO of the Massachusetts Charter School Association. DFER is the organization representing hedge fund managers, who have bet on privatization as the antidote to puberty and low test scores.

Duncan failed in Chicago, where he promised to transform the schools by 2010, and he failed as Secretary of Education, where his Race to the Top produced massive funding for privatization, high-stakes testing for teachers, a national teacher shortage, and endless rancor among teachers, parents, and school officials burdened by his mandates.

Blogger Jersey Jazzman is an experienced teacher and graduate student at Rutgers, where he has learned how reformers play games with data. He is better than they are and can be counted on to expose their tricks.

In this post, he blows away the myth of the “success” of Boston charter schools.

The public schools and the charter schools in Boston do not enroll the same kinds of students, due to high attrition rates in the charters (called Commonwealth charter schools).

He writes:

“As I pointed out before, the Commonwealth charter schools are a tiny fraction of the total Boston high school population. What happens if the cap is lifted and they instead enroll 25 percent of Boston’s students? What about 50 percent?

“Let’s suppose we ignore the evidence above and concede a large part of the cohort shrinkage in charters is due to retention. Will the city be able to afford to have retention rates that high for so many students? In other words: what happens to the schools budget if even more students take five or six or more years to get through high school?

“In a way, it doesn’t really matter if the high schools get their modest performance increases through attrition or retention: neither is an especially innovative way to boost student achievement, and neither requires charter school expansion. If Boston wants to invest in drawing out the high school careers of its students, why not do that within the framework of the existing schools? Especially since we know redundant school systems can have adverse effects on public school finances?”

Conclusion: Jersey Jazzman opposes Amendment 2, which would lead to an unsustainable growth in charter schools, free to push out the students they don’t want.

Boston Marty Walsh, a supporter of charter schools, explained in an opinion piece in The Boston Globe why he will vote NO on Question 2, the referendum to increase the number of charter schools by 12 per year indefinitely.

He wrote:

“My reasons are clear. Question 2 does not just raise the cap. Over time, it would radically destabilize school governance in Massachusetts — not in any planned way, but by super-sizing an already broken funding system to a scale that would have a disastrous impact on students, their schools, and the cities and towns that fund them.

“This impact would hit Boston especially hard. Twenty-five percent of statewide charter school seats, and 36 percent of the seats added since 2011, are in Boston. Each year, the city sends charter schools a large and growing portion of its state education aid to fund them. This funding system is unsustainable at current levels and would be catastrophic at the scale proposed by the ballot question.

“For one thing, state reimbursements to cover the district’s transitional costs have been underfunded by $48 million over the last three fiscal years, a shortfall projected to grow into the hundreds of millions if the ballot question passes.

“In addition, our charter school assessment is based on a raw per-student average that does not adequately account for differing student needs and the costs of meeting them. This system punishes Boston Public Schools for its commitments to inclusive classrooms and sheltered English immersion, as well as everything from vocational education to social and emotional learning.

“If those factors don’t tilt the playing field enough, there’s a kicker. Because our charter school assessment is based largely on the district’s spending, the more high-needs students are concentrated in district schools — and the more we have to compensate for withheld reimbursements — the higher our charter payments grow. Currently, our charter school assessment is 5 percent of the city’s entire budget. Under the ballot proposal, it would grow to almost 20 percent in just over a decade. It’s a looming death spiral for our district budget, aimed squarely at the most vulnerable children in our city. It’s not just unsustainable, it’s unconscionable.”

EduShyster (aka Jennifer Berkshire) interviews Yawu Miller, editor of Boston’s Bay State Banner, about charters and Question 2, the November referendum on lifting the cap.

http://edushyster.com/tag/bay-state-banner/

Miller is not anti-charter. Nor is he pro-charter. He has applied to charters for his own children. But he understands the widespread concern that charters will weaken public schools.


Yawu Miller: What I’ve noticed in the debate in Boston is that people are not against charter schools. They think that there is a place for them. They think that charter schools work well for some people, maybe for their own children. But they don’t want to see the kind of expansion that’s being proposed now. They think there’s a threat to the district school system if that happens. You hear a lot of people saying *I’m not anti-charter. I’m against this ballot question.* I think the funding issue has caused a lot of people who pay attention to the schools to come out strongly against this.

The storied Boston Latin School has long been recognized as one of the very best public schools in the state dropped a notch in its state ranking because 13 students opted out.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_politics/2016/09/mayor_boston_latin_loses_level_1_status_due_to_parcc_opt_outs_video

The problem is not the school or its students, but an absurd, misleading, pointless ranking system. Just like A-F grades for schools. Only the sheep create and believe such grades.

Massachusetts has been engaged this past year in a heated public debate about “lifting the cap” on charter schools. Public school parents are concerned that lifting the cap will encourage a proliferation of charter schools that will harm public schools, draining away students and funding.

One blogger, known as Public School Mama, has become deeply invested in protecting her children’s public school. Recently she and other parents have been slammed on Twitter by an out of state venture capitalist who thinks he knows what is best for parents in Boston and everywhere else.

This venture capitalist doesn’t like public schools. He calls those who defend them ugly names, suggesting they are akin to Nazis or segregationists. He thinks he is a “freedom rider,” although he is not on a bus risking his life for anyone.

My own experience has taught me that it is useless to engage with people who won’t listen. It is passing strange to tell parents that they should open the flood gates to privatization and relinquish their attachment to their community public schools, especially when the person doing the lecture doesn’t even live in the state.

Surprise: I wrote the article.

Nothing I wrote will be a surprise to readers of this blog, but may be new to the readers of The Boston Globe.

I was moved to write it because the Globe published an editorial calling for the opposite.