If we are going to debate the efficacy of charter schools in New Jersey and elsewhere, shouldn’t we have non-biased and complete information on student achievement? The answer, I think, is implied by the question.
The problem, as Robert Braun points out today, is that we are being asked to judge charter schools without that information — with data, in fact, that has been selected to prove a particular political point.
“We are seeing a classic demonstration of how data gets manipulated to support whatever point of view is in vogue,” says Joseph DePierro, dean of the Seton Hall College of Education and Human Services.
DePierro, who is a charter school supporter, warned, “It’s a classic demonstration of how not to do research: First assert the conclusion and then scramble to find the data that supports it.”
Like other independent researchers, DePierro has concluded there are no significant differences between charter and traditional public schools.
The problem with the numbers, as released, is that they do not compare apples with apples. Consider the numbers from Newark’s Robert Treat Academy:
In third-grade language arts, RTA children scored 36.1 points above the Newark district percentage passing rate. In third-grade math, they scored 38.1 points above. Those kinds of scores held true throughout the grades. In sixth-grade language arts, all RTA students passed the statewide test — 65.6 points ahead of the district pass rate.
Great numbers that allegedly demonstrate the difference between traditional public and charter schools in the city. And yet, there is far more than meets the eye here:
According to the state’s data, of RTA’s 500 students, 42.9 percent are eligible for the federal free-lunch program — compared with 71.2 percent of children in the district. By income level, those children are not comparable. Only 6.6 percent of RTA’s students have been classified as disabled, compared with 19.7 of the district’s students. Again, the populations are simply not comparable.
That last part is not something we hear from charter supporters.
To truly judge charter schools and their impact on students and the public schools, we need to start by acknowledging that the populations served by the charters is drastically different than those in the public schools — the obvious economic differences are only a small part of the equation. Charter students tend to have more involved parents — parents have to apply for the admission lottery, which is a subtle self-selection process.
And, this is the part we have ignored, we need to do extensive research into what happens in the schools that lose students to the charters. If the students leaving are economically better off or come from more involved families, doesn’t that necessarily mean that those left behind are more disadvantaged? Shouldn’t we at least get an answer to that question and try to understand what that means for the students left behind?
Whatever your view of charter schools — I dislike them — I think we can all agree that we need unbiased research before we make wholesale changes in the relationship between the public schools and charters.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
