GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

hope it rains on their parade and I hope Eva is wearing (very expensive ones because she earns hundreds of thousands of dollars)  suede heels – wish she would be quiet and go away

What happened to making sure all kids get a quality education. Who cares if it is being provided by a charter or non charter school. The bottom line should be quality education.
i don’t know what Eva’s motives are but I do know my 9 year old receives an excellent education from harlem success academy. Far better than what I have seen in some other schools.

This is not just an issue of co-location. By Fall 2012, 29% of D14 kindergartners will be enrolled in charter schools, all while our public schools are NOT FAILING and under enrolled. Our census numbers show a significant decline in kids aged 0-5.  Increasing the amount of elementary schools in our district will negatively impact (it already is) the success of our public schools.  I’m not against choice, necessarily, but the impact of choice MUST be a part of policy making and community planning. 

The current system of creating charter schools willy nilly doesn’t just render irrelevant any details in dissenting opinions (ad hominem attacks: “You’re just against charter schools/choice,” the system renders irrelevant community voice. That is both profoundly undemocratic and dangerously bad policymaking. 

Excellent question from BklynParent.  It would be great to read responses to this one.

In response to those of you who think that the issue is exclusively about co-location, please read the WAGPOPS! response.  We take issue with the community impact of charter proliferation beyond co-location. D14 has a model for school choice in place, district-wide under-enrollment, and a decreasing population of children age 0-5.  You can read our comprehensive response to the two proposals for two charters designed for our district here:  http://www.scribd.com/gemnyc/d/94382088-WAGPOPS-Letter-to-Suny-Opposing-Citizens-of-the-World-Charter-Schools

So sorry, KenMH.  After writing the 46 page letter, we didn’t have energy left for executive summary.  BUT, here are some hilites:
- D14 has 9 magnet schools – a proven sustainable and equitable model for school choice. Our magnets represent a promise between the NYCDOE and the federal gov. to desegregate our schools.
- D14 public schools have significantly higher ELL enrollment (up to 28% compared to 0%, 5%, and 10%).
- D14 schools have much more diversity than any of our charter schools
- D14 schools have trained teachers and higher staff stability.
- the models for the schools are replicas of our existing public schools with significantly less opportunities for parent engagement.
- the charter school proposals show a disturbingly casual policy for holding back students.
- there was virtually no community outreach or feedback in either the Letter of Intent or the proposal.
- As of Fall 2012, 29% of our D14 kindergartners will be enrolled in charter schools.  If these 2 proposals are accepted, 46% of our D14 kindergartners will be enrolled in charters.
- ALL of our D14 schools are under enrolled, even high performing schools. Absolutely no one is forced to go to their zoned schools.
- Census numbers are down for D14 for children 0-5.
- The charter schools proposals are financially unsustainable.

I do recommend reading it.  It’s pretty thorough.  And super disturbing that the only people who are otherwise allowed to address community impact are the charter school authorizers who are absolutely unfamiliar with the areas for which they are approving schools.  PARENTS wrote this.

Ken, the point is that D14 doesn’t need new schools at all. Our under-enrolled schools are far from failing. We have a school choice model in place. Even our A schools are under-enrolled. Adding more choices for the sake of choice defies reason and is simply bad public policy. If there are programs that parents want, our schools have been open to providing them. That’s how we have our dual language programs, for example.

So should one be forced to attend their local public school just because they live within the zone?? Charter or non charter our children deserve; not just a good education, but a great one. My daughter is a Success Academy student and I can not express how satisfied/pleased I am not just with the school, but with my daughters progress overall. I am blessed that she was accepted and  

Should one be forced to use their local police precinct or fire house or sanitation service or postal service or local city park (let’s put 2 competing ones next to each other so YOU can have choice). You don’t have to attend your local school like I did when I grew up. Parents determine the quality of a school as much as any other factor. It is interesting to know that there is a 35% chance your child will be out of HSA before he/she reaches 8th grade. And a 15% chance of being suspended. And that great phys ed program of walking up and down stairs for an hour after school.

In other words, we shouldn’t allow for competition once there are enough people supplying a product or service?  Incumbent providers have used that argument for centuries.

One can argue that the competitive process is too harsh for public education (I don’t buy it, but I think I understand the argument), but suggesting that competition is pointless once we have enough existing schools misses the point of competition.  

I think a key factor in this analysis is who’s bearing the risk.  Competition for competition’s sake can be a good thing. But is it such a good thing that it should be subsidized by the state?  It’s one thing if a private actor wants to start a school to compete against existing public and private schools.  It’s another thing if the private actor wants to do this on the public’s dime.  When you put your own money (or even that of your investors) at risk, you assess the market differently than when you’re putting my money at risk. 

It’s really just the usual argument that K-12 education would work better if it worked more like most (but not all) of the other parts of our society (including private schools, as an example).  We allow organizations and people to try to do things better than the incumbent models.  We don’t limit those attempts because we judge that there are “enough” choices already.  The goal is not to increase competition for the sake of competition.  The goal is to allow people who think they can add something to be given that chance (with varying amounts of regulation, oversight, etc., depending on the situation).  It’s possible that this approach is inappropriate for public schools, but I question the arguments that some commenters are using to discount it.  The “good enough” argument is a weak one, I think.  

Ken, What about the argument that flooding the market with choice when the students arent there negatively impacts the choices that we currently enjoy? When would it be ok to stop building schools? When we’re down to one kid for each school? There’s a lot of evidence that applying free market principles to public education doesn’t work. Can you point to some examples of where it does!

Flerp,

I’m not sure I’d use the same terminology.  I don’t think that the revenues that charter schools receive from per-pupil funding is analogous to a “subsidy”.  It is much closer to the government paying a private organization for a service.  For example, when the state buys computer software from Microsoft, they aren’t “subsidizing” Microsoft.  The government is getting a product or service in return.  

It is true, I think, that there are some payments to charter schools that are, indeed, subsidies (e.g. startup grants from the federal government), but they are small versus the aggregate per-pupil fees that are paid charter schools to educate children.  

Now, if the per-pupil amount paid to charter schools is excessive, I suppose the excess amount should be considered a subsidy.  However, since the per-pupil amount is basically the same as traditional public schools, this would represent shifting a subsidy rather than creating a new subsidy.  

Finally, as a taxpayer, I think the real concerns could be a few (and I’m sure I’m missing some):
1. Do I approve of private management of schools?
2. Do I think these new operators will add value considering the array of incumbent schools?
3. Could other operators do better?
4. Do I think the number of schools will create increased fixed costs (e.g. more principals) that overwhelm the advantages of competition?

To be clear, as a taxpayer, I think it is certainly possible (inevitable, actually) that governments will charter and parents will choose schools that I wouldn’t approve of.

Ken, when it comes to urban planning, your argument simply doesn’t make sense.  We have space limitations (public space particularly), AND we have a limited amount of students in each district.

Can you give an example of this kind of free market working in education and not business?  PLEASE?  There are plenty of different types of “school choice” models, and frankly, the idea that we can simply create more and more schools in an under-enrolled district sounds like pretty bad policy to me.  I’d need to see evidence that this is in our best interest before tax payer money gets thrown into this very risky plan.

And customer satisfaction hardly seems to play a role in this. Not does community satisfaction. Aren’t we the customers after all? And then there’s the problem with pretending that charter school accountability to the public.

There are just so many problems with the model you’re proposing, Ken. I wish you would show examples of this type of rampant competition working for kids and school systems.

WAGPOPS,

I’m not sure I see the difference between the private school situation and the public school situation with respect to the benefits of competition.  We are already using taxpayer money to pay for traditional public schools. We are talking about shifting that taxpayer money based on parental choice.  If the parents don’t want the new schools, the schools will be unable to survive.  If there is enough space for the new schools, we have a great opportunity for vibrant competition.  

While private school systems have had unrestricted competition, I agree that public systems have been traditionally shielded from competition.  That’s the problem.  I think the benefits of competition shouldn’t just be for those that can afford private schools.  I know, though, that there are real concerns about private management and competition with regards to a traditionally public system.   

I’m not a huge fan of academic study debates in comment sections because:
1. Most of the people debating don’t understand the studies they are talking about.  (Perhaps including me!)
2. So many of the studies are crap put out by special interest groups.
3. So many people have no faith in studies that disagree with their priors.

With that said, here is a blog post that talks about a review of the research of the effect of vouchers (one form of “rampant” competition) on students that participate AND on the public systems in which vouchers are introduced:

http://jaypgreene.com/category/competitive-effects/

Out of 19 studies, all but one found positive effects and none found negative effects.   

“Flerpo – 3020a process is 90 days, not a year.That’s if you are referring to 3020a hearings as an arbitration.  There is no “judicial process” in addition to that as you state; the employee is terminated or not based on the outcome of that proceeding. 
  In addition, not all unionized workers in schools have tenure protections.  Also, teachers without tenure are at will employees. Stop making stuff up.”

There is something amusing about being charged with “making stuff up” in the context of a hypothetical about a state-run Starbucks cafe monopoly. To your specific points, I’m not aware of any recent surveys about how long the 3020-a process is taking these days.  If you are, I’d love to see them.  Last I checked, the average 3020-a process took more than a year-and-a-half to conclude.  Note that just because the statute sets out a 90-day timeframe (it’s actually more like 115 days, when you count the filing of charges and the preliminary conference) doesn’t mean that the process can’t exceed that timeframe substantially.  And yes, you can challenge the hearing officer’s decision in state court and win reinstatement.  And the city can appeal that court’s decision if it overturns the hearing officer’s decision.  

Flerpo – I did not say anything about your Starbucks analogy.  That speaks for itself.  I was referring to your comments on unionized workers and 3020 a.  I find it amusing that an attorney has issues with reading comprehension. ”I am not aware of any surveys about how long the 3020a process is taking these days.” Doesn’t stop you from saying they take a year, year and a half, whatever, does it?  Would you include, in your “survey”, the many cases settled prior to the hearing, or within the 90 day period?  Wouldn’t that affect your average case length?  You were being deliberately disingenous when you referred to another “judicial review” .  A challenge to the hearing officer’s decision or an appeal from the City isn’t a part of the process any more than an appeal is for any other conviction or finding.  All rulings aren’t appealed are they?  You referred to all unionized workers in schools as having tenure protections, and left out that for at least a 3 year period (now more like 5 – 6 years with extensions of probation) that teachers are at will employees and leaving out thousands who are not tenure eligible.  That also is disingenous.

“Endless” might be an exaggeration, but, to your point, I haven’t seen any such study in the past.  I don’t understand why this particular set of facts would be problematic, though.  I view the excess space as a good thing that allows for more choices and competition.  You seem to view the under-enrollment as a fact that makes new competition unnecessary or unusually harmful.  We might have to disagree as to the possibility of “excess competition”.   

The end result of your plan sounds like utter chaos – with the opening and closing of schools willy nilly.  Innovation isn’t just brought about by competition, Ken.  Schools aren’t like restaurants or shops. Stability and sustainability matters.

But that is PRECISELY the problem that we have in our district, Ken.  We have excellent under-enrolled schools.  AND they don’t have the marketing budgets that these charter schools have.  The competition is geared AGAINST public schools and in favor of opening new schools regardless of demand (frequently manufactured by out-of-district interests). The NYC DOE doesn’t even allow public schools to photograph their own children. Compare that with the expensive professional photography and glossy brochures that the charter schools have and you’re looking at a substantial advantage that has little to do with education and informed decisions.

We’re trying to get the message out there, but this climate makes it difficult.  A bunch of WAPOPS! parents went to the Success Academy Williamsburg’s “Meet the Principals” event to welcome those families to meet OUR schools principals. We are parents, not teachers or administrators and certainly not union. The parents that we spoke to were surprised to find that the two schools in the neighboring area of where Success Academy plans to co-locate are not just NOT failing, but thriving with a diverse community of parents who are very happy and welcoming. AND there’s room for their kids at our schools. These parents believed the hype that NYC DOE is a sinking ship until they were informed otherwise.

It would be a LOT easier to promote our schools if the NYC DOE weren’t working against us by selling our kids’ addresses to Success Academy, promoting Success Academy as a better option than neighborhood schools, and talking about test scores and school grades as the ultimate predictor of learning in the classroom.

The benefits of incumbency may not apply to schools, Ken. We’ve found a number of parents believe that “newer is better,” for no real reason, just because they think that “starting from scratch” will allow them input.  Until they pierce through the veil of promises. We persuaded many parents who were initially in support of the two Citizens of the World charter schools to alter their support when we unpacked the lengthy proposals for them.  But, again, we are parent volunteers, not the paid charter school employees that are part of the extensive and well-paid marketing arm of the charter school industry.  

If we’re going to have a real competition here (and we most definitely disagree on the benefits of this), let’s level the playing field and investigate the New Market Tax Credits, the advertising dollars, the regulations surrounding advertising schools, and the wide variety of other factors that impact the notion that choice will be as free as the market.