Bad apple pundit Jerry Bracey is no longer with us. And if ours is a just and vengeful God, he is right now accounting for his edu-pundit sins by being required to perform the Sisyphean task of teaching kids how to read and do math in an inner city public school using whole language and discovery math for eternity until they reach proficiency.
In any event since we don’t have Jerry to kick around anymore, someone ought to look at this year’s Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup poll of Americans' attitudes towards their public schools sans Jerry’s spin.
Parents grade their own school well (77% A or B, split evenly). I’d call it a about a B+.
They grade their local schools less well (49% A or B, skewed heavily toward Bs). Call it a B-/C+.
And, they grade public schools nationally in the dog house (18%). Call it a gentleman’s C.
Parents were also asked what was needed to raise the schools to a grade of A. Overwhelmingly, they think that instruction needs to be improved.
So what’s the explanation for these results?
Jerry would inevitably spin the data and blame media demagoguery for the for the “my school is fine, everyone else’s sucks” results. But that’s way too simplistic.
First, you have to recognize that with questions like this that ask for people to access their own choices/abilities, i.e., “how do you access the school you chose to send your beloved children to,” people are generally either loathe to admit they made a bad choice and/or have an inflated opinion of their abilities/choices. You see this most clearly when people are asked to assess their own driving performance: “I drive great, everyone else drives like a jackass.” So, you have to factor that in.
Also, media demagoguery notwithstanding (which goes both ways, of course), people just don’t get their information on the quality of public schools from news sources. They see on a daily basis the products of the public schools – other people and their children. That’s plenty of data to form a coherent opinion. And, the polling data shows that people start having their doubts about public schools pretty quickly—the schools in their own community, not just with some amorphous notion of distant schools somewhere in the nation.
But why else might people be most satisfied with their own schools and less happy with everyone else’s schools?
When people think of public schools generally, they think of education services, the primary service offered by schools. Some might say the primary reason for their existence in the first place. You can see by question 12 above,people generally believe that schools have plenty of room for improvement in the area of educational services.
However, when parents think of their own public schools, they also think of the educational services, but they also think about day care services, the sports teams, the band, and all the other ancillary non-educational services being offered.
To be fair, public schools generally do a good job providing these non-educational services. Keeping kids safe, fed, and occupied while mom and dad work isn’t exactly rocket science after all. And, who cares if the price tag for these services is through the roof; someone else is picking up most of the tab.
When it comes to the education being provided in their own schools, parent’s expectations of their children’s performance will generally meet predictions. My kid doesn’t do as well as the surgeon’s kids, but does better than the janitor’s kids. This generally holds regardless of the teacher’s ability or the curriculum. What basis do parent’s have to judge the absolute educational capabilities of their children? Exposure to a great curriculum delivered by a super teacher, year in and year out, is not something that most people have ever seen. Nonetheless, as question 12 indicates, people have their doubts when it comes the instruction be delivered in public schools.
I think all of these factors go into inflating people’s opinion of their own schools and that their lower opinion of other people’s schools is the more honest and accurate assessment. Confirming this explanation is Nancy Flanagan unwittingly tells us in today’s Answer Sheet post.
A friend who teaches in Kansas confessed recently that she feels a little guilty as bitter education reform battles rage in New York, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. Things aren't perfect in her school--they're not perfect anywhere, including the exceptionally rare charter academies that hold lotteries for admission--but she and her colleagues believe they're doing a good job for kids.
When given a choice people vote with their feet. What is the percentage of charter schools that have to hold a lottery because too many parents are choosing them over their local public school? I’m pretty certain it’s not the exceptionally rare charter.
All I know is that if I were running a business and my new competitor had to hold a lottery because he couldn’t service all his customers desiring purchase services from him and those customers were my former customers, I’d be a little worried. Because that’s the best indication that people aren’t happy with me and the services I’m providing.
16 comments:
Jeesh, Ken. You already mis-bashed Nancy Flanagan once in your previous blog. When are you going to quite mis-bashing her?
Actually, the PDK/Gallup poll results support Flanagan's point. The reasons you provide here constitute a pretty good analysis of the "why." But the bottom line of the Poll is that grass roots US doesn't say that el hi is an "awful mess." And they don't flinch when the President tells them that schools suck and that it's their fault and their kids' and the kids' teacher's fault.
But there is something else involved. There are crappy lawyers, MD's, Dentists, barbers, and all other service providers. But we all think that service providers are good.
For a parent to believe that the school they are sending their kid to is crappy, requires them to "do something." And for all kinds of reasons, most parents are unwilling and unable to do anything.
I don't blame the parents for one nanosecond. It's the government's and the school's job to serve them, not the reverse.
Yes there are "waiting lists" for some Charter schools, and Waiting for Superman does a gut-wrenching job on those who aren't admitted. But the Charters are highly promoted and most are heavily-financially subsidized.
Moreover, even with the Federal-Corporate partnership beating the Charter drum as hard as it can, Charters have barely made a dent. And people have said with their votes that they're not into school vouchers.
The US grass roots just isn't clamoring for "choice." And the closer one examines the "choices" that are being offered, the scuzzier the alternatives are.
In no place in the world is the developed world is education a "free market." Even in hunting and gathering societies and in the animal kingdom, there is little or no choice. That there can or should be is in the dreamy heads of "education reformers."
The PDK/Gallup poll doesn't probe very deeply, which is unfortunate. They don't ask "What makes your school good? What makes all the others bad?
My hunch is that that they would very mushy answers, because the school and the media provide very mushy information.
It's also astonishing that the government, the unions, and researchers aren't polling kids, teachers, and parents "all over the place."
My hunch that this isn't being done is that all these outfits believe they "know what's best" and don't need to have lesser human beings tell them.
More research is needed to test that hypothesis.
All fixed, Dick. I've gotten that error myself when posting comments, yet the comment is still processed.
Ken,
Gotta disagree. You say "I think all of these factors go into inflating people’s opinion of their own schools and that their lower opinion of other people’s schools is the more honest and accurate assessment." Parents have much more direct information about their own schools than about other people's schools -- they see their own schools and their own schools' teachers, whereas they have to rely primarily on second-hand reports from other parents or the media for information about other schools -- so I think it is incredibly difficult to create a credible argument that less direct information would somehow lead to a more honest and accurate assessment. Isn't a simpler explanation that people hear and read all the time about how public education in America is mediocre to bad, thus influencing them to rate other people's schools as mediocre to bad, but they have generally positive experiences in their own schools, thus influencing them to rate their own schools positively?
But here's my question: How accurate are any of those assessments? To what extent does the average parent have an accurate sense of how effectively a school is serving his/her child? I would bet that much of the perception of a school is based on "feel good" criteria: the teacher is nice, the school grounds are well maintained, the principal smiles at carpool, my child is happy, etc.
An interesting question to ask would be: What grade would you give your child's teacher(s) in terms of the quality of instruction provided in the classroom? And then compare parents' answers to some hard data on student proficiency and growth. I wonder how accurate parents would be in identifying teachers' effectiveness in this area.
Parry
I would bet that much of the perception of a school is based on "feel good" criteria: the teacher is nice, the school grounds are well maintained, the principal smiles at carpool, my child is happy, etc.
Parry, that was the point I was trying to make. I'm guessing it's all the non-educational factors that are liked, as you point out.
I'm a teacher. I'm used to being bashed. I'm also used to pedants using charts, graphs, hierarchal linear modeling and VAMs to prove that I am wrong by blinding me with scientifically-based numbers (plus shouting louder).
The point remains: there is first-hand, however subjective, parent satisfaction--and there is numeric data. When your child is miserable on a daily basis, there aren't many parents who are willing to say "you have to stay at St. Philip's because their math scores are .12% of a standard deviation higher than Elmbrook High's." It just doesn't work that way, in most families. We're looking for a school that works for our kids.
Checker Finn has made a career of denigrating parents' perceptions of what matters in a school-- sneering at things like a great drama program, an equestrian club, or the fact that the big yellow bus stops conveniently a half-block away. There's an unpleasant snobbery here--parents are too uninformed to understand that their public schools are statistically mediocre, and rely on things like their own meaningless impressions of factors such as teacher dedication, programming that meets their child's interests and (sniff) convenience.
I am an advocate of charter schools, BTW. I actually was promised a job in a charter school in Detroit (in a brand-new facility), but the job was rescinded when 70 out of 400 kids did not return to the school after their first year there.
Lotteries--and exceptionally desirable charters--are, in fact, rare. And most of the parents who are willing to put their kids through a lottery-based admission are responding to the same "soft" criteria as those who choose public schools: better-looking buildings, smaller class sizes, uniforms, outside funding for perks that public school kids don't get--and, of course, well-funded hype.
Even Geoffrey Canada, who has more money and high-end, wrap-around perks than anyone in the country, can't get the scores up consistently.
I'm not satisfied with public schooling in this country. Most of us aren't. But the best way to leverage the kinds of change we need in curriculum and instruction is to begin with core strengths, and move forward.
I'm a teacher. I'm used to being bashed. I'm also used to pedants using charts, graphs, hierarchal linear modeling and VAMs to prove that I am wrong by blinding me with scientifically-based numbers (plus shouting louder).
Cute rhetorical device, but it's not an argument.
When your child is miserable on a daily basis, there aren't many parents who are willing to say "you have to stay at St. Philip's because their math scores are .12% of a standard deviation higher than Elmbrook High's.
So, if your child is miserable in the local public school, you have two options. You can move to a better district or you can pay twice for a private school. And this is a desirable outcome why?
I actually was promised a job in a charter school in Detroit (in a brand-new facility), but the job was rescinded when 70 out of 400 kids did not return to the school after their first year there.
i understand your desire to have a tenured job for life, but this is a feature, not a bug, of our economic system.
Lotteries--and exceptionally desirable charters--are, in fact, rare
This is where understanding data really helps. Good charters are rare because charters are rare.
And most of the parents who are willing to put their kids through a lottery-based admission are responding to the same "soft" criteria as those who choose public schools: better-looking buildings, smaller class sizes, uniforms, outside funding for perks that public school kids don't get--and, of course, well-funded hype.
Right. So why shouldn't they have a choice? Of course, you're neglecting the instructional aspect of it as well which the poll also shows as being the primary problem dissatisfied parents have with schools. Also, the average charter gets less funding than the average public school in the area.
But the best way to leverage the kinds of change we need in curriculum and instruction is to begin with core strengths, and move forward.
Isn't that the problem? Despite all your lofty rhetoric, the fact is that we're not moving forward. NAEP scores have remained flat since she started keeping track. Your failure to move forward, which has resulted in persistent widespread academic failure among our most vulnerable students (the very students the current system was supposed to help) is the proximate cause of all the outside reform efforts, mostly foolish ones I agree, being foisted upon you. The system you want is by its nature a political beast. Stop complaining about the politics, you can't have it both ways.
Nancy Flanagan wrote...
Lotteries--and exceptionally desirable charters--are, in fact, rare.
No, not a fact. In Arizona, the state with the highest percentage of students attending charters, in a 2009 survey, over 60% of charter schools reported waiting lists for at least one grade according to the Arizona Charter Schools Association.
By state law, if the number of applicants exceeds the spaces available they must provide an equitable system such as a lottery for enrolling students. Some charter schools used to required parents line up for available spots (I personally waited in line 10 hours to get my children into a charter school), most have moved to a lottery based system.
Nancy Flanagan then wrote...
And most of the parents who are willing to put their kids through a lottery-based admission are responding to the same "soft" criteria as those who choose public schools: better-looking buildings, smaller class sizes, uniforms, outside funding for perks that public school kids don't get--and, of course, well-funded hype.
Only partially right. 2007 survey of over 6,000 charter school parents byt the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools shows that the Top 3 most mentioned reason for selecting a charter school are...
1. Curriculum (specialized and\or back to basics) mentioned by at least 40%.
2. Small class size
3. Quailty of teachers
Well funded and building appearance did not appear on the list, but they could be buried in other category.
Over 1/3 of respondents did mention that unhappiness at prior school is a reason they choose a charter school. Is that a hard or soft choice?
Zing
Nancy,
I'm not sure I disagree with most of what you said. As the principal of a public school that primarily serves students and families who have chosen our school (we have a magnet program in our district that allows parents to apply to participate in different schools), I am well aware of the "soft" criteria that can influence parents to choose and/or be happy with our school. And I make sure we do just about everything we can to maximize our soft criteria: our grounds are clean, our front office is helpful, and I smile every day when I stand out at carpool.
I am not claiming that those soft criteria are not important, but they do not determine the quality of a child's education. As customer-oriented as I can try to be as the principal, that doesn't make up for ineffective teaching (I am lucky to work in a school with phenomenal teachers, so I don't have to worry too much on that front). What I believe is that the soft criteria need to be accompanied by clear data around student learning: not just standardized test data, but more easily readable and interpretable data tied to specific objectives. If a parent values the soft data more than the hard data (e.g., proximity and customer service over a track record of achievement), that's fine, but as a parent myself, I would like to have a broad range of data before making that choice.
Parry
I live in Michigan, also an early charter school state, like AZ. Frankly, I'm always curious about why a charter school would hold mini- lotteries for a handful of "open slots" in a particular grade level. If a family moves into a public school district, the school must automatically provide (often through lots of last-minute juggling, moving teachers, buying portables and creating split classrooms) a place for every child who enrolls. I can tell you that while there may be a few charter schools in MI that say they "can't" accommodate all applicants in individual grades, auditoriums full of sobbing children who believe that their future will be sealed by a lottery ball just don't happen here. Even in Detroit, where charters outperform public schools.
Placing limits on the number of children who can enroll in a school or grade creates artificial scarcity. In much the same way that Teach for America can only accept so many new corps members, so the fierce competition to get into the program--to teach in a crappy school for two years--becomes the Next Big Thing on the adventure teacher's resume. Not an honest attempt at providing better teaching/learning--just another contest.
I do agree with Dick--it is the public school's job to serve the all children who enroll effectively and equitably. When charters limit the number of students, it makes planning much easier for them, and spreads resources (public and private) thicker for a PSA.
The core issue with charters is always: compared to what? I hate to sound like Sarah Palin (I really hate it), but I can see a charter school from my house, right in the center of my district (which has high achievement data and a superb teaching staff). People who choose that charter school generally do so because they have had a run-in with a particular teacher or principal in the public school, or feel that their child has been subjected to too much test prep. The charter operates under a Glasser philosophy. They have a lot of staff turnover, due to their non-unionized pay and working conditions. In fact, they serve as a kind of farm system for teacher recruitment for the well-regarded public schools. They advertise; the public schools don't have to.
Again--I am a fan of the idea of charter schools, the freedom to create a school that meets the needs of particular children and parents. In Michigan, charter schools get exactly the same per-pupil allowance as surrounding publics, by law. Our highest-profile charters are also heavily subsidized by private and corporate funders.
But this isn't an argument about charter schools. Nor is it a dialogue. I am bemused by a blogger who would dedicate three blogs (and considerable research) to "proving" how very wrong I am. For the record, your assumptions about me and my beliefs are almost 100% incorrect. Perhaps you have a lot of time on your hands.
Nancy you must live in a statistical anomaly.
Nationwide, charters only receive about 60% funding compared to regular public schools. In Michigan the percentage is slightly higher at 65%. There'd have to be an awful lot of private funding to make up that differential.
Also, I'm not making any assumptions about you, I have providing actual links where you have stated the position of yours I describe. You might want to refresh your memory.
Also 59% percent of charter schools report having waiting lists, so that's a lot of lotteries.
Again: by law, MI PSAs receive exactly the same funding as *surrounding schools.* If charters get 65% of the average state funding, statewide, that means that most charters are located in areas where public funding is at the lowest end of the scale. You don't find a lot of charters in Grosse Pointe, or other communities where high property valuation triggers significantly greater "held harmless" funding under MI school finance law.
Actually--it's a very fair way to fund charters. PSAs already get more private funding--and things like donated facilities, auctions, supplies, volunteer PR/media services, etc. However--even with a tax shift to equalize funding, over time all schools, no matter what governance model, tend to look like the community they're in.
Having a waiting list is not the same thing as holding a public lottery. My public school has a waiting list for third grade at one building--excess third graders are sent to one of the other elementary schools via bus to level out the class sizes. But we don't turn kids away. In fact, about this time of year, after Fourth Friday student counts, the charter schools begin "throwing back" children who don't "fit in," causing another shuffle and waiting list.
And again--isn't a waiting list just another tool of artificially increasing the perception of demand? Why should charter schools get to pick and choose who's enrolled?
Exactly the same operations funding perhaps. What they typically don't get is the capital expense funding which accounts for a large part of the differential. That's the case in my state Pennsylvania in which the differential stands at 60%, about the same as in Michigan.
Most charters are located in larger cities which typically are funded above the average district, so this argument fails.
By law most charter schools with a waiting list must hold a lottery.
Why should charter schools get to pick and choose who's enrolled?
Technically, they can't turn any students away that meet the admissions criteria, hence the need for lotteries. They also don't have the luxury of being able to force any student to attend. Public schools can often obtain the same "benefit" by converting to a charter school.
As President Obama said, "I could probably have finagled the system to get my kids in a public school as good as Sidwell Friends" [Or words to that effect.]
Sec. Duncan followed this path, but he had the wealth to choose his "neighborhood." With magnet schools, gifted programs, waiver schools and such, there is the equivalent of "Charter Schools" within every school district of any size.
The parents who apply to get their schools into a Charter School are self-selected from the get go.
The DC "Scholarship" evaluation found high voluntary exit of both students and teachers from the Charter schools, and that many of the Charters were "Faith Based" (read Church).
That both kids and teachers can "transfer" across school categories without any glitches and that all schools are "age/grade x school subject" structured is proof that what we have is different labels for a single species of "school."
Within the single system we note wide variability, with the SES/ Racial characteristics the only dependable relationship with standardized test scores.
This correlation has come to be believed as causal. The belief system justifies lefties and righties to join in targeting poverty. Some believe that the school is powerless; it's in the genes and the parents Others that poverty has to be eliminated before the schools can be effective. Others that poverty can and should be adjusted for statistically in considering school effects.
Meanwhile, the instructional protocol/products that are the determinants of instructional accomplishments go un-noticed.
“Frankly, I'm always curious about why a charter school would hold mini- lotteries for a handful of "open slots" in a particular grade level.”
No, not handfuls and not mini. Many charter schools (4 that I can think of) are oversubscribed at 100% of enrollment for the first grade level of entry. In AZ, they hold lotteries because it is state law, not because they want to have rooms full of sobbing children. In fact, most lotteries are performed via the Internet or done in private, with parents notified by email. You stated above that FOR A FACT that lotteries are rare. They are not. Your experiences in Michigan are anecdotal, as are my observations in Arizona.
“Placing limits on the number of children who can enroll in a school or grade creates artificial scarcity.”
There is no limit on the number of charter schools in Arizona. As for school capacity, charters cannot rely on bonds and capital overrides for facilities (essentially free money for the district schools, as it takes nothing away from their operating budget). Charters (in AZ) must pay the rent\mortgage out of operating funds.
“Having a waiting list is not the same thing as holding a public lottery.”
Again, it is in Arizona, by law.
“Why should charter schools get to pick and choose who's enrolled?”
Are you paying attention, they can’t, they have to take all comers. Can you point to some charter schools that do this explicitly and are allowed to by state law?
BTW, no comment on the survey of over 6000 parents and why they choose a charter schools over a district school?
Post a Comment