tom@tomjones69.com
My April 3 blog “Talking About Public Education (Part 2)” discussed the exceptional effectiveness of Success Academy Charter School network, and many other charter schools, in educating low-income children of color to attain high performance on educational achievement standardized tests. I observed the enormous gap between the educational achievement of Success Academy students, and that of students in comparable New York City district public schools. I also noted the resistance from Progressive Democrats and their teachers’ union allies to expanding charter school availability, and the then-pending New York State 2024 budget battle in which both Governor Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams supported expansion of charter schools in New York City. Unfortunately, Progressive Democrats in the New York State Legislature defeated the effort to expand charter school availability, except for a minor accommodation allowing thirteen “zombie” vacated charter renewals.
In the midst of the New York budget debate Success Academy released a position paper titled “The Harlem Example”, and subtitled “How the Only Majority Charter School District in New York State Disproves the Arguments of Charter School Critics”. I share a brief synopsis of their paper below.
“New York City’s Community School District 5 (Harlem) is unique in New York State in that a majority (59%) of its public-school students attend charter schools… Harlem provides a unique opportunity to evaluate opponents arguments against allowing charter schools to proliferate. These opponents make three principal arguments:
1) that the academic performance of charter schools is illusory because they cherry-pick the most privileged students;
2) that traditional district schools then struggle because they are stuck with harder-to-educate students; and
3) that charter schools undermine district schools financially.
The record of charter schools in Harlem disproves all of these claims.
“Charter schools in Harlem don’t cherry-pick the most privileged students. To the contrary, Harlem’s charter schools educate both a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students than its district schools (87% vs. 82%), and of Black and Latino students (94% vs. 85%).
“Neither is there any evidence that charter schools have undermined the performance of Harlem’s district schools. The year before Harlem Success Academy Charter School opened in 2006, charter schools educated only 6% of Harlem’s public-school students, and student achievement in Harlem lagged far behind State averages by 25 points in math and 22 points in reading. Today, the gap in academic performance between Harlem’s district schools and New York State averages has declined by three points in math (from 25 to 22 points), and by six points in reading (from 22 points to 16 points). This improvement, albeit modest, certainly doesn’t suggest that the proliferation of charter schools has hurt the academic performance of Harlem’s district schools.
“The proliferation of charter schools in Harlem has virtually eliminated the previously enormous gap between the academic performance of students in Harlem and students statewide. If we examine the combined performance of all public-school students in Harlem, both those attending district schools and those attending charter schools, we can see the proliferation of charter schools has led an enormous positive impact on student achievement in Harlem. The gap between Harlem’s public-school students and the statewide average has shrunk to just two points in reading and three points in math. The previously enormous achievement gap between the children in Harlem and children statewide has virtually been eliminated. This improvement was primarily driven by Harlem’s charter schools, which beat the statewide averages by 10 points in math and 9 points in reading. This fact conclusively disproves the cherry-picking thesis since there would be no net improvement in academic achievement in Harlem if charter schools’ academic success was due to cherry-picking.
“The proliferation of charter schools in Harlem hasn’t undermined Harlem’s district schools financially… Obviously, a school with declining enrollment will receive less funding, but that isn’t troubling if that funding is nonetheless sufficient to meet the needs of the students who remain. Charter school critics contend it won’t be… We can test that hypothesis by looking at three of the district schools where enrollment has shrunk the most. P.S. 30’s enrollment has fallen from 395 students in 2006 to just 205 students in 2020-2021 (the most recent year for which the data is available). Nonetheless, it was still able to afford 23 classroom teachers…, 12 paraprofessionals, 5 special education teachers, 2 guidance counselors, 1 psychologist, 1 social worker, and 1 English-as-a-second-language teacher. In all, P.S. 30 had 49 adults to educate 205 students, a one-to-four ratio, at a cost of $43,628 per student.
“Similarly, P.S. 133’s enrollment shrank from 380 students to just 210 students, but it nonetheless had 21 classroom teachers…, 15 paraprofessionals, 7 special education teachers, 2 guidance counselors, and 1 social worker — a total of 57 adults at a cost of $43,800 per student. Finally, P.S. 194’s enrollment shrank from 374 students to 169 students, but it could nonetheless afford 29 adults at a cost of $40,450 per student.
“In 2020-2021, elementary and middle district schools in Harlem received $35,389 per student on average. By comparison, elementary and middle charter schools received $17,911 on average….That is because charter schools only received $16,123 per pupil in basic tuition. Although charters were eligible for additional funding streams such as Title 1 and special education funding, it doesn’t add up to nearly as much as district schools get. For example, since 97% of the students at St. Hope Leadership Academy Charter School are economically disadvantaged and 27% have a learning disability, it received additional funds that resulted in total funding of $19,171. However, this was still far less than what Harlem’s district schools receive…”
I offer five observations for your consideration.
First, it’s clear that parents in Harlem want charter schools, as reflected in the majority (59%) of its public-school students enrolled in charter schools, and a waiting list for additional charter school enrollment.
Second, when given a choice parents in Harlem flee ineffective district public schools, as reflected in P.S. 30’s enrollment decline from 395 students to 205; P.S. 133’s enrollment decline from 380 students to 210; and P.S. 194’s enrollment decline from 374 students to 169 students.
Third, ineffective district public schools in New York City continue to receive generous public funding support, as reflected in $43,628 per student at P.S. 30; $43,800 per student at P.S. 133; and $40,450 per student at P.S. 194. Do not believe Progressive Democrats when they claim the problem is inadequate resources for these failing schools.
Fourth, Progressive Democrats are adamant about blocking charter school expansion despite the overall impressive track record of charters in fostering high performance by low-income students of color. This validates The Economist Magazine characterization of the ideological mindset driving progressives’ opposition to charter schools: “…To the ascendant progressives, in New York and nationally, reformers emphasis on choice and competition stank of capitalism and their emphasis on testing of racism; charters reeked of both”. (March 18, 2023)
Fifth, Progressive Democrats never propose holding teachers and administrators accountable for abysmal performance and wasted resources in failing district public schools. They are more wed to protecting jobs for the teachers’ and administrators’ unions, rather than the parents and children they are elected to serve. Do not believe Progressive Democrats when they inevitably blame “systemic racism” for the failure of their education policies.
I think Progressive Democrats’ actions to block low-income children of color from increased access to high-performing charter schools is a moral disgrace. And it is the epitome of cynicism for progressive politicians and their teachers’ union allies to claim they are acting for the best interests of the children. Progressive Democrats do not know how to govern effectively.
What do you think?