Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

GUEST COLUMN:

Book promotes myth of charter school success

Charter schools have become politicized entities because of misnomers regarding their performance.

There are few differences, in practice, between regular public schools and charters. The marketing of deceitful promises has established a myth of superiority of charter schools.

Charter schools are privately managed, taxpayer-funded schools that are exempt from many of the regulations and much of the oversight imposed on regular public schools. Their creation began in the 1990s under a sincere belief that providing more flexible learning options would improve academic achievement. 

A recent book, “Charter Schools and Their Enemies,” by Thomas Sowell, is a farcical narrative that exacerbates the political nonsense regarding the effectiveness of charter schools. The book presents no evidence that innovative curriculum or instructional methods were responsible for improved student achievement.

Instead, the data cited consistently demonstrate that the composition of the student body was the factor most responsible for test score outcomes.

Standardized tests are intended to measure individual ability or aptitude, and do not effectively measure school quality. Individual test-taking ability is mostly inherent by third grade and is an ability within itself. Performance is consistent (stays within a limited range) over an academic career when compared by percentile rank or proficiency level.

Competition over high-achievers is prevalent in any school choice environment. To create a perception of superior school quality, the task becomes to create a student population with higher test-taking abilities.

Environment and culture may make a difference on which students choose to attend a particular school but do not greatly affect individual test outcomes. Better test-takers are not created, they are enrolled.

Test scores were the sole measurement used in the book to compare performance. Charter and regular public schools were contrasted in instances where they shared a school building. Charter schools were deemed superior when they had higher average test scores. Data tables and anecdotes overwhelming confirmed that demographic differences in student populations were responsible for school test outcomes. 

In other words, students with already high test-taking abilities found their way into charter school classrooms and populations.

English-language learners, students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students were underrepresented in charter schools and overrepresented in regular public schools.

Charter schools build student populations through cherry-picking, selective avoidance and attrition. The focus is on the recruitment and retention of higher-achieving students. For-profit charters selectively avoid special education students and others who are more difficult and expensive to educate. Clearly, their motivation has become profit, not promised educational innovation.

The author stated that retaining disruptive students is “counterproductive for the charter schools.” This is true for all types of schools. Weeding out low-achieving students is a consistent practice in many charter systems.

Establishing student bodies with similar academic ability may be an admirable trait for charter school advocates. Presenting the facade that higher test scores are based on school quality is a great marketing tool but it is not fooling all low-income Black and Hispanic parents. They share the same concerns of white suburban parents about their children being in an educational environment with “those” kids.

The true allure of most charter schools is providing a private school atmosphere without the expense of tuition. That enables parents to safeguard their children with other like-minded, higher-achieving students, similar to students living in wealthy neighborhoods that attend suburban schools. Creation of a segregated (by academic ability) learning environment is not evidence of educational success.

Differences between the curriculum and instruction of a public, charter or private school are minute. The data in the book painted a different narrative about better practices by charter schools. No evidence was presented that associated school factors with higher test scores.A political viewpoint was expressed under the guise of an academic study that resulted in a fraudulent conclusion.

Charter school “success” as measured by tests is just a political mirage. If there were miraculous educational philosophies or methods that truly improved test-taking ability, they would be adopted by all schools. Marketing false promises and shunning low-achievers are not exceptional educational practices.

There is resentment of private entities that create profit by poaching better students, leave difficult students behind and receive undeserved praise for improving academic performance. Better titles for the book may be “Charter Schools and the Enmity” or “The Myth of Charter School Success.”

Greg Wieman is retired after a 38-year career in public education in which his roles included teacher, coach, principal and superintendent. He holds a doctoral degree in education from Eastern Michigan University. He can be reached at [email protected].