Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

[pamak]

Stanford did both national and local studies, including a study of MA.

And no, when the lottery and observational methods of the MIT study jibe -- and they do -- they help validate each other. Again, here is what the authors of that study say about their own work:



Question, why should I believe what you say about their work rather than what they say?

Well, the limitations in the Stanford study do not differentiate their methodology among states.

As long as NEITHER study controls for the student backround for the WHOLE population of schools, the findings of EITHER or both studies combined cannot be used to make general conclusions! This is clear by the reservation of the researchers in both studies who point at the limitations of their study.

I do not make the quotes. I reprint what THEY say. about the limitations of their study.

And I (actually another poster) posted another study where the researchers say that on averae the charter schoold do not perform better or worse than the public ones. So, what makes you now think that the studies you posted are more credible than that study. AS I said, if you want to debate different findings by different reputable researchers (which is common for many complex issues) be my guest! But you need to make an argument based on comparing the limitations of the different studies instead of choosing to be convinced by the studies that tell you what you want to hear!

 

[NatMorton]

With the understanding that even the best real-world studies have limitations, have you ever noticed that the anti-charter crowd only ever focuses on the limitations of the studies they disagree with?

 

[NatMorton]

Well, the limitations in the Stanford study do not differentiate and it found in some states charter schools are below public schools. So, there is no point in bein picky and trying to draw conclusions based on what the Stanford study says about a single state.

As lon as NEITHER study controls the student backround for the WHOLE population, the findins of EITHER study cannot be used to make eneral conclusions! This is clear by the reservation of even the researchers themselves who point at the limitations of their study.

From CREDO:

Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

So you and your children don't put in any extra effort to actually learn being in that Charter school? You didn't have to put in any extra effort to sign up to be in that lottery for that Charter school? My kids attended both charter and traditional public schools. They put in the same effort...

debatepolitics.com

 

[NatMorton]

Well, the limitations in the Stanford study do not differentiate their methodology among states.

As long as NEITHER study controls for the student backround for the WHOLE population of schools, the findings of EITHER or both studies combined cannot be used to make general conclusions! This is clear by the reservation of the researchers in both studies who point at the limitations of their study.

I ask you again. Why should I believe your interpretation of the MIT study and not its authors?

 

[pamak]

I ask you again. Why should I believe your interpretation of the MIT study and not its authors?

I will repeat it because you posted it before I completed my editing.

I do not make the quotes. I reprint what THEY say. about the limitations of their study. So, you build a straw man here.
My interpretation is only about what proper debate means when it takes place among laymen like you and me who do not have the credentials of the reseachers who undertook the different studies mentioned in this thread

I (actually another poster) posted another study where the researchers (who have also advanced degrees in their field) say that on average the charter schoold do not perform better or worse than the public ones. So, what makes you now think that the studies you posted are more credible than that study? THIS should be the issue of debate here! As I said, if you want to debate different and even contradictory findings by different reputable researchers (which is common for many complex issues ) be my guest! But you need to make an argument based on comparing the limitations of the different studies instead of choosing to be convinced by the studies that tell you what you want to hear!

 

[pamak]

From CREDO:

Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

So you and your children don't put in any extra effort to actually learn being in that Charter school? You didn't have to put in any extra effort to sign up to be in that lottery for that Charter school? My kids attended both charter and traditional public schools. They put in the same effort...

debatepolitics.com

Does not address the point I made.

 

[pamak]

With the understanding that even the best real-world studies have limitations, have you ever noticed that the anti-charter crowd only ever focuses on the limitations of the studies they disagree with?

Did you actually pay attention to what I said?

Read again!

As I said, if you want to debate different and even contradictory findings by different reputable researchers (which is common for many complex social issues ) be my guest! But you need to make an argument based on comparing the limitations of the different studies instead of choosing to be convinced by the studies that tell you what you want to hear!

 

[pamak]

and my instict was right and now I have evidence

This is what I said earlier earlier (emphasis on bold red)

You do not refute my point which is that the lottery study DOES NOT include all schools (which I highligght in bold red). So, yes, when ON AVERAGE charter schools perform as well or as bad as the public schools (as it was mention on the study posted by another poster), this means that it is quite possiblle to randomly pick a group where the charters happen to outperform the public schools. Even I said, that I expect charter schools to outperform public schools in more poor areas because of the lottery system in picking up their students. But I do not see this holdingg in more mid-income and afluentt areas. So, Such finding does not show that charter schools are better than public schools.

and now I found this which says the same thing

From

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28477/w28477.pdf

In Massachusetts, lottery-based evidence shows charter attendance increases students’ test scores, but that is due to the large number of urban charter schools in the sample; suburban charters have no or negative impacts (Angrist et al., 2013).

and regarding credentials,

Sarah Cohodes is an Associate Professor of Economics and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy from Harvard University.

 

[pamak]

more from the above paper

Massachusetts and New York City both have charter schools with varied impacts. When researchers correlate school-specific impact estimates from those sites with school characteristics, they find that charter schools that boost test scores are likely to employ a No Excuses approach
...

No Excuses charter schools, such as frequent suspensions, as racist and oppressive, contributing to the policing of Black and Latinx children. In other contexts, exposure to strict disciplinary practices may decrease students’ educational attainment and increase the likelihood of adult incarceration (Bacher-Hicks, Billings, & Deming, 2020), meaning that such practices may be at odds with the academic goals of No Excuses schools.

I will NOT make an argument here about racism. My argument is about "selection bias" which is very common in statistics and can result in different outcomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias). In this case when one tries to use strict discipline, the result is that those poor kids who are motivated by their family enough to have good education will handle it and continue their education in the charter school. The kids who are not that motivated by their parents will go back to the public school of their neighborhood. This is like the army. The system can often help people from disadvantaged groups to get a decent education, but clearly it is not for everyone and cannot be used to offer public education for all.

 

[roguenuke]

more from the above paper

Massachusetts and New York City both have charter schools with varied impacts. When researchers correlate school-specific impact estimates from those sites with school characteristics, they find that charter schools that boost test scores are likely to employ a No Excuses approach
...

No Excuses charter schools, such as frequent suspensions, as racist and oppressive, contributing to the policing of Black and Latinx children. In other contexts, exposure to strict disciplinary practices may decrease students’ educational attainment and increase the likelihood of adult incarceration (Bacher-Hicks, Billings, & Deming, 2020), meaning that such practices may be at odds with the academic goals of No Excuses schools.

I will NOT make an argument here about racism. My argument is about "selection bias" which is very common in statistics and can result in different outcomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias). In this case when one tries to use strict discipline, the result is that those poor kids who are motivated by their family enough to have good education will handle it and continue their education in the charter school. The kids who are not that motivated by their parents will go back to the public school of their neighborhood. This is like the army. The system can often help people from disadvantaged groups to get a decent education, but clearly it is not for everyone and cannot be used to offer public education for all.

So to me this (No Excuses) sounds like they basically are able to kick out the problem children, students much more easily than their public school counterparts can. They can employ this policy to get rid of "bad apples" without actual impact on their overall performance because now those kids are not considered as part of their student body. It definitely seems to support my earlier posts, which showed that they are able to get and maintain those who are more motivated, have better outlooks to begin with, which will go into their success.

 

[pamak]

So to me this (No Excuses) sounds like they basically are able to kick out the problem children, students much more easily than their public school counterparts can. They can employ this policy to get rid of "bad apples" without actual impact on their overall performance because now those kids are not considered as part of their student body. It definitely seems to support my earlier posts, which showed that they are able to get and maintain those who are more motivated, have better outlooks to begin with, which will go into their success.

And equally important is that they do not even have to initiate an official policy for kicking out those kids. Many kids will simply quit.

 

[pamak]

If you can find a case of an MA charter manipulating its enrollment, be my guest. They go through a rigorous recertification process every five years by the state. Any charter caught doing this would be shut down in a heartbeat. In nearly 30 years across something like 60 charter schools here in MA I don’t believe it’s happened even once.

I just did find an example of manipulating retention without the need of an official policy to kick out the bad apples.

 

[NatMorton]

I will repeat it because you posted it before I completed my editing.

I do not make the quotes. I reprint what THEY say. about the limitations of their study. So, you build a straw man here.
My interpretation is only about what proper debate means when it takes place among laymen like you and me who do not have the credentials of the reseachers who undertook the different studies mentioned in this thread

I (actually another poster) posted another study where the researchers (who have also advanced degrees in their field) say that on average the charter schoold do not perform better or worse than the public ones. So, what makes you now think that the studies you posted are more credible than that study? THIS should be the issue of debate here! As I said, if you want to debate different and even contradictory findings by different reputable researchers (which is common for many complex issues ) be my guest! But you need to make an argument based on comparing the limitations of the different studies instead of choosing to be convinced by the studies that tell you what you want to hear!

Since you've avoided the question several times, I will infer you do not have a good reason why I should believe your interpretation of the MIT study results over the authors'. I am sticking with the authors, so I think we can put that one to rest.

I believe MIT and state-level CREDO studies are a better assessment of MA charters than I do national studies because there isn't noise from 49 other states clouding the actual performance of MA charters. By way of comparison, which statistic do you think would be a better gauge of COVID vaccination rates in MA, vaccinate rates for MA residents or the national vaccination rate?

 

[NatMorton]

Did you actually pay attention to what I said?

Read again!

As I said, if you want to debate different and even contradictory findings by different reputable researchers (which is common for many complex social issues ) be my guest! But you need to make an argument based on comparing the limitations of the different studies instead of choosing to be convinced by the studies that tell you what you want to hear!

I am not making statements about charters nationwide. There are conflicting studies and as I said in my very first post, aggregating results from charters across states is meaningless because each state has it own specific charter laws and regulations.

What I have said, and continue to say, is that the jury is in where it comes to MA charters. They outperform MA traditional public schools with all kinds of students and especially with the most needy students. That's important, IMO.

 

[NatMorton]

and my instict was right and now I have evidence

This is what I said earlier earlier (emphasis on bold red)



and now I found this which says the same thing

From

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28477/w28477.pdf

In Massachusetts, lottery-based evidence shows charter attendance increases students’ test scores, but that is due to the large number of urban charter schools in the sample; suburban charters have no or negative impacts (Angrist et al., 2013).

and regarding credentials,

Sarah Cohodes is an Associate Professor of Economics and Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy from Harvard University.

What you have found is what I posted earlier. MA charter gains are seen in urban areas, but again, that's where the need is. The schools in the tony, leafy suburban towns in MA are doing just fine.

From earlier in this thread:

Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

They do produce better student outcomes, in some places, than even charter schools. This has been researched. The outcomes depend on many factors, not just a single one, and cannot be compared average to average, but rather individual school to individual school, particularly within systems. We...

debatepolitics.com

 

[NatMorton]

more from the above paper

Massachusetts and New York City both have charter schools with varied impacts. When researchers correlate school-specific impact estimates from those sites with school characteristics, they find that charter schools that boost test scores are likely to employ a No Excuses approach
...

No Excuses charter schools, such as frequent suspensions, as racist and oppressive, contributing to the policing of Black and Latinx children. In other contexts, exposure to strict disciplinary practices may decrease students’ educational attainment and increase the likelihood of adult incarceration (Bacher-Hicks, Billings, & Deming, 2020), meaning that such practices may be at odds with the academic goals of No Excuses schools.

I will NOT make an argument here about racism. My argument is about "selection bias" which is very common in statistics and can result in different outcomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias). In this case when one tries to use strict discipline, the result is that those poor kids who are motivated by their family enough to have good education will handle it and continue their education in the charter school. The kids who are not that motivated by their parents will go back to the public school of their neighborhood. This is like the army. The system can often help people from disadvantaged groups to get a decent education, but clearly it is not for everyone and cannot be used to offer public education for all.

I don't have the data at hand any more, but a few years back I crossed swords with the union faithful here in MA over this issue. The suspension rates in MA charters were only slightly higher than in trads, and given the small cohort size in most charters the difference came down to about one extra suspension per year per grade in charters.

From first hand experience, yes, I would say our charter took discipline issues more seriously than our local trad, but we saw that as a good thing.

Update: Found the data.

For the school year 2011/12, there were 30,741 charter students and 2,687 out-of-school suspensions (8.7%). Same year, 919,302 traditional public school students and 43,409 suspensions (4.7%). Average charter enrollment per grade per school, 50. That 4% difference in the rates equates to an extra two (not one) suspensions per charter class, per year.

The data can be verified at doe.mass.edu.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of MA charters are based in urban areas. So the numbers above are comparing mostly urban school discipline rates against state wide averages.

 

[NatMorton]

I just did find an example of manipulating retention without the need of an official policy to kick out the bad apples.

That doesn't work either. First off, you charters in Boston have lower attrition rates than does the Boston Public School system (Boston are charters at 9%, the BPS at 14%). Second, the MIT study (and possibly CREDO, not sure) tally the scores of students who are attending the school on day one of the school year. A charter kicking out a student mid-year would do no good.

 

[pamak]

The conclusions I drew are that MA charters outperform MA traditional public schools even when controlling for demographic factors. That is exactly the conclusion the authors of that study arrived at. Do you refute this point?

The "involved parent" is just another demographic factor that the lottery method controls for unless you want to to make the rather absurd assertion (as roguenuke has done) that involved parents suddenly become less involved for no reason other than their child missed out on a charter lottery.

I do not refute what that national study says, at least not entirely. I have cited a more recent study from what I consider to be a more reputable source, Stanford. That study contradict's the older study Vegas' posted. Here it is:

Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

Feel free to refute my evidence or not More bullshit. You can't specify which specific claim because you made no request of a specific claim. You simply asserted I had not been quoting passages from cited studies. You sir, continue to lie. And I've about hit my limit. Good-bye.

debatepolitics.com

As I have said repeatedly, I have researched charters in MA, not nationally.

Are you playing with me?

I questioned your attempt to generalize by pointing the FACT that the study's conclusions are NOT based on the whole body of charter schools.

The lottery method is NOT describing the whole body of charter schools. So, my point above is not refuted!

I even posted a study which explains WHY the lottery method (which controls for the "involved parents" shows better performance for charter schools. As I already posted, the lottery includes a higher proportion of schools from poor urban areas and I already explained that in these circumstances. there is an issue of selection bias.

So, EVEN when one controls for things like family income level, there will STILL be more and less motivated students within the EXACT same income level and the more motivated students will go and remain in a charter school. In practice, while all studies try to control for all the factors that are involved, they cannot measure accurately factors like "motivation". They use proxy values but the MERE fact that enrollment and retention in a charter school requires more actively involved parents and kids which are willing to often face a classroom of harsh discipline reasonably shows that there are important differences between charter and public school students in poor urban areas. This is not an issue in mid and affluent places because the group of parents there does not include parents who are not involved (such as parents with no education).

 

[pamak]

I don't have the data at hand any more, but a few years back I crossed swords with the union faithful here in MA over this issue. The suspension rates in MA charters were only slightly higher than in trads, and given the small cohort size in most charters the difference came down to about one extra suspension per year per grade in charters.

From first hand experience, yes, I would say our charter took discipline issues more seriously than our local trad, but we saw that as a good thing.

Update: Found the data.

For the school year 2011/12, there were 30,741 charter students and 2,687 out-of-school suspensions (8.7%). Same year, 919,302 traditional public school students and 43,409 suspensions (4.7%). Average charter enrollment per grade per school, 50. That 4% difference in the rates equates to an extra two (not one) suspensions per charter class, per year.

The data can be verified at doe.mass.edu.

Also keep in mind that the vast majority of MA charters are based in urban areas. So the numbers above are comparing mostly urban school discipline rates against state wide averages.

Slightly higher is your judgment. I say two extra suspension per class per year can be a big difference for eventually weeding out one or two of the most troubled kids per year. And when you do such thing, you have to see the effect in the average scoring of the class if these kids eventually go away.

Well, if the vast majority of MA charters are based in urban areas, this is EXACTLY in tune with my point where I explained WHY I expect charter schools to show better results in poor urban areas.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Lifeboat ethics are a poor foundation for a society’s education system.

 

[pamak]

That doesn't work either. First off, you charters in Boston have lower attrition rates than does the Boston Public School system (Boston are charters at 9%, the BPS at 14%). Second, the MIT study (and possibly CREDO, not sure) tally the scores of students who are attending the school on day one of the school year. A charter kicking out a student mid-year would do no good.

Not so fast!

When troubled kids go from one public school to another, which is actually QUITE common for troublemakers but also for poor kids with families which experience eviction or lose their job, the attrition of a single public school does not mean that its group of students becomes better. Low performers leave and are replaced by other low performers. from other public schools. So, the quality of the body of students in the group of public schools does not improve as a result of the attrition. This is not what happens with the attrition of charter schools. If a kid is not motivated and does not want to continue his education in a specific charter school, it will not go to another charter school. It will revert back to the public school system. So, the flow of low performers is from charter to public school!

 

[pamak]

Since you've avoided the question several times, I will infer you do not have a good reason why I should believe your interpretation of the MIT study results over the authors'. I am sticking with the authors, so I think we can put that one to rest.

I believe MIT and state-level CREDO studies are a better assessment of MA charters than I do national studies because there isn't noise from 49 other states clouding the actual performance of MA charters. By way of comparison, which statistic do you think would be a better gauge of COVID vaccination rates in MA, vaccinate rates for MA residents or the national vaccination rate?

I did not avoid the question. I explained that it was a dishonest question because I never claimed what you want me to defend.
This thread is asking a general question addressing posters from all over the US states, so you cannot simply argue that your studies are better because they have less noise from other states. There are state-level studies which show whatever you want to find and I even published a paper which mentions state-level saudis which show that unionized charters have actual superior performance that non-union charters. From the previous link I posted

Those charters that are unionized, however, may provide an opportunity to examine the role of unionization in student and other outcomes, potentially through difference-in-difference strategies. One study using this approach found unionization in California charter schools to be associated with increases in students’ math achievement (Matsudaira & Patterson, 2017).

The real issue which is debated is the difference in the performance that is observed is an indicator of some superior quality of the charter school system or an indicator of different factors which is not a sign of superior quality in the education provided by a charter school. And in order to come to conclusions one needs to see the limitations of the studies (including the state-studies) and the peculiarities of th charter system in the particular state which is examined.

As I explained, I expected to see better performing charter schools in more urban poor areas and even you admit that your state has a high percentage of charters in urban areas. So, if MA has a charter system which is concentrated in more urban areas compared to other states, i will expect it to show better results than other states. This however, is the result of the distribution of charter schools within the state and does not necessarily mean that your state's charter schools are better than those somewhere else. I also explained that factors like involvement and motivation are not quantified that easily. So, issues about "selection bias" exist which give an advantage to charter schools in urban poor ares compared to the neighboring public schools. Finally, the limitations of the studies you posted and which I described are mentioned by the researchers of your study who clearly show that their attempt to control for the different background of students in public and charter schools is limited.

 

[pamak]

What you have found is what I posted earlier. MA charter gains are seen in urban areas, but again, that's where the need is. The schools in the tony, leafy suburban towns in MA are doing just fine.

From earlier in this thread:

Would you prefer to send your children (and/or fund) Charter Schools over Public Schools?

They do produce better student outcomes, in some places, than even charter schools. This has been researched. The outcomes depend on many factors, not just a single one, and cannot be compared average to average, but rather individual school to individual school, particularly within systems. We...

debatepolitics.com

But this does not imply that the schools there accomplish such results because they have better teachers or curriculum. It is reasonable to explain such results because more motivate students and more involved parents choose a charter school in urban poor areas. It will be very irrational to believe that the complicated procedure of applying to attend a charter school will attract a group of families which on average have the same motivation level for getting good education for their kids as the motivation level in the group of families that send the kids to the public school system. The fact that two families may have the same income level or ethnic background does NOT make everybody equal in determination and statisticians cannot quantify and compare so easily the students' background.

 

[mrjurrs]

No, that is not what "the cap" refers to here in MA.



Source: https://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/enrollment/fy2022/pre-enrollment-guide.html

Here's a shocker, MA is one public education system out of 50. Public schools must maintain space for charter school students should the students decide to attend public schools. Not class space, facility space.

 

[NatMorton]

Are you playing with me?

I questioned your attempt to generalize by pointing the FACT that the study's conclusions are NOT based on the whole body of charter schools.

The lottery method is NOT describing the whole body of charter schools. So, my point above is not refuted!

I even posted a study which explains WHY the lottery method (which controls for the "involved parents" shows better performance for charter schools. As I already posted, the lottery includes a higher proportion of schools from poor urban areas and I already explained that in these circumstances. there is an issue of selection bias.

So, EVEN when one controls for things like family income level, there will STILL be more and less motivated students within the EXACT same income level and the more motivated students will go and remain in a charter school. In practice, while all studies try to control for all the factors that are involved, they cannot measure accurately factors like "motivation". They use proxy values but the MERE fact that enrollment and retention in a charter school requires more actively involved parents and kids which are willing to often face a classroom of harsh discipline reasonably shows that there are important differences between charter and public school students in poor urban areas. This is not an issue in mid and affluent places because the group of parents there does not include parents who are not involved (such as parents with no education).

Why do you keep ignoring that the observational method produce the same results? That demonstrates that the lottery method -- even though it does not account for all MA charters -- is a representative sample.

Don't bother pressing this point further with me until you address this question. You keep avoiding it, and it's central to the discussion.