Pilot and Charter Schools
The Boston Herald
April 15, 2006
by Michael Goldstein
Founder, Research and Dissemination Director of the MATCH School
Imagine that the Yankees asked the Red Sox to "join them" - and let George Steinbrenner run both teams. After all, it'd be in the Yankees' best interests. But would elimination of friendly competition benefit the fans?
A new proposal (read: PR ploy) to fold independent charter public schools into the Boston Public School district as pilot schools is no different. The proposal would eliminate the friendly competition between pilots and charters that benefits Boston parents. The district would immediately face a $16 million annual shortfall (the amount the state pays to BPS as charter school "reimbursements" for departed students). Dissatisfied parents who seek charters (overwhelmingly African-American) would once again have no place to go.
There's a better way, the New York City reform approach. They are expanding pilot and charter schools' access for parents. The teachers' union there has actually opened its own charter school - and plans a second. And where Boston Superintendent Tom Payzant frets about the competition from charter public schools, his New York City counterpart, Joel Klein, embraces it, even giving charters rent-free school buildings.
Why? Klein (a Clinton Democrat) knows that having two types of small public schools - both those controlled by the districts (pilots) and those which are totally independent (charters) - is better than one. Pilots and charters together push one another to innovate and execute.
That's the way it has worked in Boston for the last decade. All charters and most pilots have random lottery admissions, yet both types are small public schools that outperform traditional schools.
For example, pilot middle schools had 30 percent of students score proficient or above on the 2005 MCAS, much better than BPS as a whole. Charters were even better, with 56 percent of students scoring proficient or above. Same with high schools: Pilots 36 percent proficient, charters 65 percent proficient. And both types of schools are doing this with mostly black and Hispanic populations, proving that the achievement gap can be closed with the right approach.
Given that both types of schools have similar demographics, why do charters do better? Charters have more freedom and face tougher accountability. Two low-performing charter schools were shut down last year, for example, while a few lagging pilots stay open. Another reason could be that some pilots do not prioritize MCAS, because they feel they have more authentic ways to assess students.
Friendly public sector competition is actually what created pilot schools. Boston charters started in 1994. Within a few months, the district - facing the loss of not just students but also talented leaders and leaders who coveted freedom to innovate - created pilot schools. Both types of schools developed long waiting lists, mostly of poor families.
In 2002, Boston charters reached the "cap" - the law that, no matter how many parents want charters, limits enrollment to about 5,500 children. Alas, in 2003, with the friendly competition diluted, the Boston Teachers Union immediately halted the creation of new pilot schools.
Ultimately, this forced the district to cut a 2006 deal leaving many pilot school leaders unhappy. To gain new pilot schools, existing ones had to reduce their "teachers do whatever it takes to help kids" approach. Now pilot schools will provide less after-school help; less parent communication; and less teacher collaboration. Whenever teachers work more than a seven-hour work day, they must receive $36 per hour in overtime.
Not only is this bad for kids, but for most pilot teachers, too. Most are super-committed. Now a handful of clock-watching colleagues, eager to garner OT pay, will make it harder for the caring teachers to collaborate.
Charter public school leaders privately sympathize with pilot school leaders over drinks: They care just as much about turning around the lives of their students, but they're competing against us with one hand tied behind their backs. Why would charter schools join them in tying our own hands?
Parents and kids need more of both types of small public schools, pilots and charters - and the friendly competition between them that creates effort and innovation.
|
2006 Headlines |
Pilot and Charter Schools
|
|
