NYT Story: For Detroit’s Children, More School Choice but Not Better Schools

[EastsideAl]

For Detroit’s Children, More School Choice but Not Better Schools
June 28, 2016

Ana Rivera could have had almost any choice when it came to educating her two sons. For all the abandoned buildings and burned-down houses in her neighborhood in the southwest part of this city, national charter school companies had seen a market and were setting up shop within blocks of each other, making it easier to find a charter school than to buy a carton of milk.

But hers became the story of public education in a city grasping for its comeback: lots of choice, with no good choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us...=top-news&_r=0

Enjoy...

[Bobl]

Nice plan: take 1.1 billion dollars that would have gone to public schools, award it to for profit organizations, who skim 33 million right off the top. The new schools have the same or worse results. This, from folks like the Devos family and their allies, who describe themselves as fiscal conservatives.

[ABetterDetroit]

Thanks Al, interesting article.

Now that there is plenty of "choice" how do we get accountability and results from public and charter? Clearly we don't have that from either. Politicizing this issue to death is not a solution unfortunately. If it was, these would all be the best schools in the nation.

[Jimaz]

DetroitYES Home » Non Detroit Issues » Thom Hartmann » Why Does Chris Christie Want To Screw New Jersey Schools?

[renf]

This essay in today's paper about schools in Detroit is very informative. It would be great if the local papers provided such in-depth reporting and discussed real ways to change the funding of schools and municipal governments in Michigan. While there are some successful charter schools, at this point it sure looks like the various attempts to privatize public education through the use of tax dollars accomplished very little.

[Baselinepunk]

This essay in today's paper about schools in Detroit is very informative. It would be great if the local papers provided such in-depth reporting and discussed real ways to change the funding of schools and municipal governments in Michigan. - snip -

Good luck with all that.

The 4th Estate in Detroit proper and Metro hasn't had any balls in quite some time.

[Wesley Mouch]

I read the article. Couldn't find allegations that charters as a whole have harmed students any more than the existing system was/is.

The problems were a litany of philosophical complaints about whether there's room for non-public schools in our educational system, but little to none about harm.

So if our children are doing no worse, and some options are better -- that's the idea. Provide some choice -- and work to kill the bad schools and support the good.

Or whine that charters didn't solve all problems for everyone -- and pine for the good ol' days of DPS monopoly.

[evergreen]

Hate to say it, but the best way to help Detroit parents is to reinstate tracking in all neighborhood schools. The struggle to get kids to schools all over town, with predictable attendance problems, is heartbreaking. I attended inner city schools until 8th grade, but I was always tracked into high performance groups. There is no way my parents could have transported me out of the neighborhood. Give these kids and their parents a chance.

[belleislerunner]

I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised - we have a mother [[Ms. Rivera) who clearly has never explained to an 11 year old where his body came from and we have teachers who choose to stage political protests by not going to work yet still excepting pay. And we wonder why our students don't perform at the same level as Stuyvesant High School. There's only two excuses - teachers and parents.

[mwilbert]

I read the article. Couldn't find allegations that charters as a whole have harmed students any more than the existing system was/is.

The problems were a litany of philosophical complaints about whether there's room for non-public schools in our educational system, but little to none about harm.

So if our children are doing no worse, and some options are better -- that's the idea. Provide some choice -- and work to kill the bad schools and support the good.

Or whine that charters didn't solve all problems for everyone -- and pine for the good ol' days of DPS monopoly.

Actually, the Stanford research that the article references [[not adequately) showed that the charters were [[on average) better than the DPS schools. The problem is that they were still really bad. What I think the article points out accurately is that Michigan's system for chartering schools is absurd [[and allows very bad schools to persist) and that all the Detroit schools, DPS and charter, are underfunded, especially as they have to deal with a very challenging student population.

I'm not convinced there is any politically feasible solution for most of the current school population. I think the best thing for the future of the city would be to go to a voucher system, but I'm not stupid enough to think that would help many of the students/families in the system now. It might make it more attractive to more affluent families that might consider moving into town and topping up the vouchers with their own funds, but there isn't enough money available to make vouchers large enough to pay for the educational services a disadvantaged population is likely to require.

Frankly. people with children who are likely to need to use the DPS or charters and can't get into the exam schools should strongly consider moving someplace else, preferably to a different metropolitan area, simply because this problem is almost certainly not going to be solved while their children are still in school.

[southen]

I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised - we have a mother [[Ms. Rivera) who clearly has never explained to an 11 year old where his body came from and we have teachers who choose to stage political protests by not going to work yet still excepting pay. And we wonder why our students don't perform at the same level as Stuyvesant High School. There's only two excuses - teachers and parents.

Spouting more of this nonsense I see. Your blind dislike of teachers isn't rooted in reality and for some reason you are incapable of understanding why teachers might strike for better working conditions and to receive pay they've already earned.

[Wesley Mouch]

Actually, the Stanford research that the article references [[not adequately) showed that the charters were [[on average) better than the DPS schools. The problem is that they were still really bad. What I think the article points out accurately is that Michigan's system for chartering schools is absurd [[and allows very bad schools to persist) and that all the Detroit schools, DPS and charter, are underfunded, especially as they have to deal with a very challenging student population.

I'm not convinced there is any politically feasible solution for most of the current school population. I think the best thing for the future of the city would be to go to a voucher system, but I'm not stupid enough to think that would help many of the students/families in the system now. It might make it more attractive to more affluent families that might consider moving into town and topping up the vouchers with their own funds, but there isn't enough money available to make vouchers large enough to pay for the educational services a disadvantaged population is likely to require.

Frankly. people with children who are likely to need to use the DPS or charters and can't get into the exam schools should strongly consider moving someplace else, preferably to a different metropolitan area, simply because this problem is almost certainly not going to be solved while their children are still in school.

What makes something underfunded. 'Under' what?

Flaws in the current Charter system do not make a reason to eliminate the only force that is encouraging DPS to be better. The argument that they're no better than public has always seemed like a self-serving argument, by those who just want to kill charters in their own self-interest. As long as one charter is doing better than average, charters are doing something good. They are keeping the heat on the public systems to get better. To identify ways of doing things differently. Some fail. Some succeed.

[Canadian Visitor]

What makes something underfunded. 'Under' what?

Flaws in the current Charter system do not make a reason to eliminate the only force that is encouraging DPS to be better. The argument that they're no better than public has always seemed like a self-serving argument, by those who just want to kill charters in their own self-interest. As long as one charter is doing better than average, charters are doing something good. They are keeping the heat on the public systems to get better. To identify ways of doing things differently. Some fail. Some succeed.

This makes very little sense to me.

First off, the end game for any education system surely has to be results based.

If the system is failing, as Detroit's clearly was in years past, and you introduce a 'reform' and the aggregate results remain abysmal, then it logically follows that the reform failed.

It didn't achieve the desired objective.

If you want to argue that Charter schools CAN be successful, that's fine. But surely you CAN NOT argue that they HAVE been successful, on the whole, in Detroit.

That doesn't automatically mean you get rid of them all, but surely it means a wholesale re-think, because WHAT IS; IS NOT working.

***

Which brings me to different point. Why is it, and this isn't unique to Michigan btw, that particularly in the US and to some degree Canada there is an allergy amongst governments and/or their constituents to simply hire/contract successful systems to overhaul and manage yours for a period of time [[say 15 years to create a culture shift?)

There are U.S. school boards, along with countless non-U.S. systems that produce infinitely better results in state/public school outcomes.

Why not hire one of those systems to achieve change?

Granted there are other societal issues that contribute to different outcomes, whether in education, health, transit or other areas.

But if you want a better result, why not hire an expert with a track record?

Lots of transit authorities hire MTR [[Hong Kong's) transit system [[which is profitable) to overhaul their own. That doesn't mean MTR can turn a system in a completely different environment into one that makes money. But they often can turn in it one that loses a lot less.

No reason you can't do the same by hiring an entire school district or State or Province to manage your system for you, if you're consistently performing below your peers.

[Wesley Mouch]

This makes very little sense to me.

First off, the end game for any education system surely has to be results based.

If the system is failing, as Detroit's clearly was in years past, and you introduce a 'reform' and the aggregate results remain abysmal, then it logically follows that the reform failed.
...snip...

I get your point. And it would be great if reforms in education were easily measurable. The teacher's union's argument that testing is inaccurate isn't self-serving, but not entirely wrong. We don't seem to have managed to create objective tests that can find out whether Johnny can add 2+2. That doesn't seem to me to relieve the burder to keep trying on testing.

Likewise, the fact that our tests don't show that Charters are in aggregate exceeding public schools, if in fact true, doesn't show that students aren't benefiting. The most obvious one to me is that I would expect that Charters should lift all boats. That in itself would be good. Competition doesn't just improve the leaders, it improves the laggers too.

But the most important reason you're 'results abysmal means reform failed' isn't logic is that it doesn't mean that results could increase in the future. Presumably, that's what the public systems are arguing. 'Sure, we suck -- but if you give us money we'd be just as good as the bastards that are taking profits instead of paying us more'.

The equivalent charter argument is 'sure, we're not much better in aggregate than public schools, but the next idea we try might work' ... or results take time to show ... or some of us are better and at least that's better.

Why not hire one of those systems to achieve change?

That's a good point. Hiring a new superintendent is that idea. They should be bringing different ideas. That's the basic idea of Charters. That you can change. Existing public schools have limitations on their ability to change. Institutional interia is a problem in the best organizations -- and public bureaucracies seem to have it bad. And of course the most important stodgy group are Unions. It should be obvious to all that Unions are not progressive. They are stodgy, stubborn, and resistant to change. Its not the wages or benefits or pension excesses that are the problem with Unions. Its their resistance to change. Unions don't means a given reform will fail -- but it makes it much less likely that it will be adopted.

[Canadian Visitor]

The equivalent charter argument is 'sure, we're not much better in aggregate than public schools, but the next idea we try might work' ... or results take time to show ... or some of us are better and at least that's better.

I think the issue here is one of both time limit [[how long do you get to prove you can do it better or be the rising tide that lifts all boats?)

We can agree it takes more than a year, or two or even three to right a wronged ship......but if a policy is a decade long in the tooth, shouldn't material improvement be expected? Is it merely sufficient to say.....well they'll get it right, one day?

I think that sacrifices yet another generation of children to an entirely unacceptable outcome.

That's a good point. Hiring a new superintendent is that idea. They should be bringing different ideas. That's the basic idea of Charters. That you can change. Existing public schools have limitations on their ability to change. Institutional interia is a problem in the best organizations -- and public bureaucracies seem to have it bad. And of course the most important stodgy group are Unions. It should be obvious to all that Unions are not progressive. They are stodgy, stubborn, and resistant to change. Its not the wages or benefits or pension excesses that are the problem with Unions. Its their resistance to change. Unions don't means a given reform will fail -- but it makes it much less likely that it will be adopted.

Again, it has been fairly widely shown that a new 'superintendent' or director of education is rarely sufficient to create culture change.

Unions are one source of abstinence, but trustees and senior management are often just as likely culprits.

That's why I said 'hire a system'. So if you see a school district whose results are exceptional, be they in the U.S. or elsewhere, why not contract that entire district to oversee either your whole system, or a meaningful part of it? In other words, sack all of the existing senior management.

There are doubtless rules about subverting democratic will and all that, and I don't make light of that, there would need to be some work arounds......but I'm suggesting an end-run around trustees as well. Let them decide to hire 'the other guys' then go away, no meddling, for at least 4 years.....

***

A change at that scale can also help make the case for more resources. A skeptical public may be loathe to give a failing school system more $ per pupil, believing, fairly or otherwise that they are not spending the existing $ wisely.

A completely new regime, coming from a different system, can independently argue that more money is needed if they are having success in their home system, in part, based on more generous resources, and also be having that increase in resources be tied to performance.

ie. We will add $1,000 per pupil if the SAT score rises by 3% or more within 3 years. In addition to that, of course, the system being paid to your system gets a 'performance bonus' for both its staff and its 'corporate/gov't group'.

***

Final note [[for the moment )

Why does any jurisdiction still have school boards?

The original thesis, so far as I understand, came from a time when schools were mostly/entirely locally funded, and educational needs were highly local.

In the age of Federal/State/Provincial funding of a large chunk of school budgets, and an assumption that skills/education need to be both nationally and internationally transferable, what sense is there in the extra bureaucratic layer?

[mwilbert]

What makes something underfunded. 'Under' what?

Under what experience in districts around the country has shown to be needed to make students in similar circumstances to DPS students successful. The charters that are able to get these students to high levels of achievement and also to replicate their experience in multiple schools seem to be spending somewhere between $18,000 [[KIPP) and $32,000+ [[some of the Success Academies) per student. It may be possible to do something similar with less funding, but it would behoove people who think that is possible to come up with some examples of it being done.

Flaws in the current Charter system do not make a reason to eliminate the only force that is encouraging DPS to be better. The argument that they're no better than public has always seemed like a self-serving argument, by those who just want to kill charters in their own self-interest. As long as one charter is doing better than average, charters are doing something good. They are keeping the heat on the public systems to get better. To identify ways of doing things differently. Some fail. Some succeed.

This is pretty much all wrong. First, I don't see any evidence that DPS is getting any better, so whatever the charters are doing to encourage that appears to be completely ineffective, and not a reason to preserve charters. Second, I don't think the goal should be to make the DPS better, because I doubt that is possible. The goal should be to eliminate it. Third, as I said earlier, I think the evidence is that the charters actually are better than the DPS [[on average) but most of the them are so bad that they shouldn't exist either, and there isn't any effective mechanism for getting rid of the bad ones. They fail at education, and only succeed at survival. I'm not anti-charter, but the system in Michigan is horrible and shouldn't be tolerated.

[Dumpling]

The political spheres seem to still be digesting the background of the recent
attempted coup in Turkey, but it was possibly funded by Gulenists, and Gulenists
get some of their money from their chain of charter schools in the U.S.
[[Hint courtesy of Eclectablog). [[Wesley Mouch, you are totally off the hook for
just this particular case for charters. Don't have to say a word.)

[Wesley Mouch]

The political spheres seem to still be digesting the background of the recent
attempted coup in Turkey, but it was possibly funded by Gulenists, and Gulenists
get some of their money from their chain of charter schools in the U.S.
[[Hint courtesy of Eclectablog). [[Wesley Mouch, you are totally off the hook for
just this particular case for charters. Don't have to say a word.)

I have nothing to add to your guilt by association chain. Even if the coup was possibly funded in part by a chain of charters, how does that change the educational outcome?

[Dumpling]

I am quite sure YOU had no intention of transferring state education monies into slush
funds for foreign adventurism. I am not nearly so sure concerning the motives of the multimillionaire backers of the charter school concept - if this is a side
motive of theirs or not.

There seems to have been no direct negative impact on the quality of education at the
Gulenist schools - it is reported [[I don't have the proper deep background to assess
this) that the schools recruited highly competent individuals from Turkey but had them
turning a large chunk of their pay [[which to me looked to be less than what public school teachers would normally make) over to Gulen. The students themselves seem to have received a reasonable education from their Turkish teachers.

[Wesley Mouch]

My Dumpling, can you explain why you think this is bad?

As to education, Gulenists are doing a good job. Many argue that Erdogen isn't such a great guy. Why shouldn't Gulenists be allow to advocate for change 'back home' with funds earned from productive work with education here?

I'm only vaguely aware of the Gulenists, and had not yet read about their connections to the coup in Turkey. Please do enlighten on your concerns about them.

I don't see fair profit from honest endeavor as being a 'transfer of state education monies into slush funds for foreign adventuring'.

[Dumpling]

Caveats!! I am totally not an expert in Turkish internal affairs or the internal
workings of charter schools, so please make any and all corrections to my
viewpoints as needed. Please use other sources for proper understanding of
the situation.

The Gulen charter school issue can be subdivided into two parts. Part one,
the charter schools by themselves. Teachers are being somewhat shortchanged by
the Gulen charter schools. The pay in the first place is not high enough to make
teaching there truly competitive with other professional occupations which is the
case everywhere except in the best public schools in the most concerned communities.
The Turkish teachers, since they are in the Gulen movement, are being additionally
shortchanged as they are de facto required to turn over part of their pay to their
movement. How comfortable are you with that?
Let's say you are comfortable with that! To continue, the teachers in the Gulen
movement are teaching as part of their combined science and religion mission.
The religion is Islam, whatever their Turkish flavor is. You are probably comfortable
with that, but, the former Ottoman Empire was built and fell in some extremely
unsavory ways for the non-Muslim ethnic groups within it, and they have long
memories, and are not assured that there will be no harm or conflict going into the
future.
Plus there are still millions who view the United States as fundamentally Protestant
Christian, notwithstanding the Bill of Rights, and who may view Muslims as a worse
fifth column than Roman Catholics were.
The Gulen schools apparently won't take or will remove students with learning disabilities.
I am spreading pure hearsay, but from what I read, special needs students are
encouraged to attend public schools instead.
But the schools as such are often reasonably effective overall and I would even go so
far as to say they are a needed and welcomed alternative to public schools.

[Dumpling]

Part two. The foreign adventurism part. Suppose, instead of distributing funds
for foreign missions covertly through charter schools, there is a checkoff box on
Michigan State tax returns that reads, "Would you like x amount of your tax dollars
to be used for ventures, including military operations, run by organizations of foreign
nationals that submit requests for funding and are approved by the State of Michigan?"
How well would this be accepted? My feeling is that neither the Michigan taxpayers
nor the State Department would accept this.

[Wesley Mouch]

Part two. The foreign adventurism part. Suppose, instead of distributing funds
for foreign missions covertly through charter schools, there is a checkoff box on
Michigan State tax returns that reads, "Would you like x amount of your tax dollars
to be used for ventures, including military operations, run by organizations of foreign
nationals that submit requests for funding and are approved by the State of Michigan?"
How well would this be accepted? My feeling is that neither the Michigan taxpayers
nor the State Department would accept this.

I do get your point. But if they are being paid for a service, and spending some of their profit on causes they believe in, I don't see that as a problem.

That does not mean I agree with their cause [[although it seems a lot less harmful than some other Islamic causes at the moment).

Seems to me best to simply manage charters well, and make sure that the payments are based on educational outcome and for educational purposes.

Spending your reasonable profits on non-terrorist advocacy does not seem to me like a money-conduit.

[professorscott]

What makes something underfunded. 'Under' what?

Flaws in the current Charter system do not make a reason to eliminate the only force that is encouraging DPS to be better. The argument that they're no better than public has always seemed like a self-serving argument, by those who just want to kill charters in their own self-interest. As long as one charter is doing better than average, charters are doing something good. They are keeping the heat on the public systems to get better. To identify ways of doing things differently. Some fail. Some succeed.

Well there you go. Anybody wonder why the U.S. has excellent universities and colleges, but lots of really shitty public schools? It's really simple. People choose what college or university they go to, based on their own preferences and a lot of criteria: price, location, what programs are offered, perceived quality of education, and on and on.

You go to public school, on the other hand, where the government says you do. If you are poor then you are likely to be born in an area where the schools aren't so great, and you can't do anything about it since you can't afford to move to a better area [[or you already would have).

I think the solution has to include a general opening of borders and allowing any child to go to any school that he or she can reach: in-district public, out-of-district public, charter, Catholic, whatever. Certainly some schools will shrink and then fail, but that probably means they ought to. There are already counties and parts of counties where this is done, at least at the public school-district level. Require it statewide! And watch what happens. A lot of the educational establishment will howl, but I only care about what happens to children, not bureaucrats.

Money, by itself, is not the problem. A rathole can absorb as much money as you care to toss down it and never become anything more than a rathole.

[renf]

Which charter schools in Michigan are Gulanist schools? About 85 years ago, Michigan voters were given the option to vote for a constitutional amendments that would have eliminated private schools at the elementary and secondary level. They turned that down.