If only charter operator Envision Schools were half as successful at educating students at is it at persuading the press to print flattering articles about its schools, our education challenges would be solved.
Today's San Francisco Chronicle Insight section carries a pair of puff pieces praising Envision's City Arts and Technology (CAT) for its "remarkable results."
Dose of reality: While I'm not blasting CAT as a failure, its achievement ranks 12th out of the 17 general- education (non-continuation) high schools in the San Francisco Unified School District. Below are the spring 2009 achievement results for San Francisco high schools, from California's Academic Performance Index reporting system, ranked in descending performance order. All schools not otherwise
designated are non-charter schools with entrollment by lottery:
1. Lowell (academic magnet) 949
2. Washington 785
3. School of the Arts (arts magnet) 781
4. Galileo 757
5. Lincoln 751
6. Balboa 747
7. Raoul Wallenberg 744
8. Gateway Charter 743
9. Metropolitan Arts & Tech Charter 629
10. Leadership Charter (Small School by Design) 618
11. Phillip & Sala Burton 615
12. City Arts & Tech Charter 610
13. International Studies Academy 590
14. Thurgood Marshall 575
15. Mission 555
16. John O'Connell 550
17. June Jordan (Small School by Design) 504
The Chronicle article (actually a two-article package, by UC Berkeley's Bruce Fuller) notably neglects to include any specifics about academic results, though it does imply that CAT serves an inordinately high number of low-income students (an implicit effort to justify the wan achievement scores).
But more reality: CAT ranks 10th of SFUSD's 17 general-ed high schools in the percentage of low-income students it serves, and it ranks 15 of SFUSD's 17 general-ed high schools in the percentage of limited English speakers it serves. And of course "education reform" advocates never let public schools get away with justifying low achievement based on demographics -- that's "excuse-making" -- so CAT doesn't get to either.
Fuller's articles don't mention the odd policy at CAT and Envision's other SFUSD schools, Metro Arts & Tech, of giving no grades below a C. That would be called "grade inflation" or "lowered standards" at a public school, and would certainly give graduates a nice boost at getting into colleges. I know lots of kids at other fine SFUSD high schools who sure wish their schools had such a policy.
Comments
Your sense of fairness, while commendable, seems rather quaint. Yes, we live in a cosmetic world where education policy is sold to the public like a can of soda. How else can the trigger legislation be explained? - leaving decisionmaking, in many cases, to the very parents who failed in the first place to teach their children to respect education.
This battle you are waging for truth in advertising is doomed because facts have nothing to do with promoting policy on the floor of the legislature. Though little has changed in regard to low performing students for decades, with the exception of having spent a lot of money for little return, the makeover of a crisis in the public's eye is complete. Now the mob is demanding its pound of flesh. Enough thirst and you will drink just about anything. Whether charters hold their self anointed promise or not, decades of chronic failure have piled up and the "change" wins. Without other alternatives, charters will be the last man standing.
In this case it's not so much my sense of fairness but my belief that the news media should not misinform and mislead the public that's the purpose of this post. The notion that CAT is a superior school that is leading the way for others is not just not supported by the facts -- it's contradicted by the facts.
The article by Bruce Fuller reads primarily as a human interest piece and technically speaking is not inaccurate. But Caroline is entirely correct. It is what Fuller doesn't say and seems to have consciously left out that is the problem. On the surface CAT might seem like a successsful school ( I've never been there),but if test scores have anything to do with it, a good school it clearly is not.
With a quick look at the school numbers off SFUSD's website it doesn't take long to come to the conclusion that there is something very wrong going on a CAT. The API has dropped precipitously over the last three years, particularly in language arts and science along with many other categories. Is is woefully irresponsible for Bruce Fuller to create the impression of a thriving charter school when the reality is that it is losing ground quickly.
As to what accounts for this drop I am in no position to say. Test scores aren't everything, but there are no bragging rights to be had at CAT.
Fuller's article says that 60 percent of CAT students are poor but 80 percent go on to four-year colleges. Knock yourselves out spinning the API results to call CAT a failure.
Now you are being simplistic, Anonymous. The school scores are going down hill fast. College admissions has much to do with proper counseling and facilitation. And getting INTO college is not the same as graduating from college. I don't want to belittle the achievement of CAT in getting their students into college. But achievement scores show a very different picture. Which is more important? Ultimately, the only real metric that matters is how well high school and college graduates succeed in securing jobs and making a life for themselves.
There is definitely something wrong with the picture at CAT.In what scenario do test scores fall off the cliff as college admission rates increase? What is going on here?
There are issues there, Anon @ 9:15. Based on the official figures, CAT ranks 10th from the top (top being the highest percentage) of SFUSD's 17 non-continuation high schools in the percentage of low-income students it serves. Fuller makes rather a flamboyant point (for a supposed academic researcher) of giving no comparison figures for other schools. So we have zero idea how that speaks for CAT -- it's bogus to cite it as a mark of superiority.
Also, that info is meaningless without the attrition rate. If a high number of CAT's lower achievers leave, that means the ones who stay are the successful ones more likely to go on to college. That whole issue is really complex, but the fact remains that that info is meaningless without that piece.
In addition, Envision schools have an odd (though undoubtedly beloved by students) policy of giving no grades below a C, which obviously gives their students an artificial boost on their college apps. And that's only a few of the asterisks.
Don, it could be the policy of giving no grades below a C, couldn't it? What's your take on that?
And also, Anon, I'm not calling CAT a failure. I'm saying that its showing is mediocre and in no way justifies citing CAT as an example of success. The pointed lack of hard data in the Chronicle opinion piece certainly reveals that Fuller is BS'ing, for whatever reasons of his own.
If there is a lack of hard data about CAT then you and Don are as much BSers as you make Fuller out to be.
That's not at all valid, Anon. There is not a lack of hard data; all the hard data shows CAT to be in the low-to-middling performance range. Fuller BS'd by choosing (rather pointedly) to eschew using ANY data, which is clearly the tactic he had to use if he wanted to portray CAT as having "remarkable results." It's a striking tactic for an academic researcher.
RE:Fuller-Is there a conspiracy by some large well-heeled procharter interests? Yes. Does that mean that mean the whole concept should be discarded ? No. Corporate interests don't speak for the majority of charter interests, just the same the word corporate is not code for bad or evil, at least in my world.
Having said that here is an excerpt from Danny Weil, anti-charter activist from the Uncensored Daily:
"These market-based policies – privatization and widespread choice – appeal to the Governator and his wealthy corporate backers, including the pro-charter school crowd that have donated heavily to the Governor and Romero campaigns for office. Bruce Fuller, director of the Policy Analysis for California Education at UC Berkley put it best when he told the Mercury News, the reason the Governor likes privatization is, “Because he’s got well-heeled donors that remain very supportive of charter schools, it’s a no-brainer for the governor given his affection for market remedies.”
So where is Fuller coming from?
I have no idea where Fuller is coming from or what his interest is in promoting this school. But in this article he was BS'ing, undeniably, plain and simple. In case I need to repeat it again, it's bizarre for an "academic researcher" not only to neglect to use any data, but to make claims that are in direct conflict with the data.
The voices of society's charter debate are dominated by the extremes. This detracts from measured discussion on the viability of alternative providers to traditional schools. If the only reform allowed is the one the comes from the very system that is failing than we have narrowed our options. It does not need to be a debate over capitalism. Charters are dominated by small players not large, despite the news.
A frend of mine had a child at Alice Fong Yu. The boy was mildly acting out and nor making the garde at AFY's hign standrads. They squeeze the families of kids that don't perform and push them out. He went to KIPP. When i asked him why he went there his answer was, "what's the alternative?" This sums it up. He either had to take an assignment at a school that was well below par or go to a charter. The district's idea of choice only works for some. he simply saw no other alternative.
They say no vouchers, no charters, so offer something, anything - change. Pull the trigger.
CAT has a majority population of poor children yet 80 percent of its seniors go to four-year colleges. What is mediocre about that?
Anonymous, do you understand that lots of kids from impoverished backgrounds get preferential treatment from most colleges if they make it to the application stage, especially if you have college counselors who know how to work the system? I'm not saying these kids didn't earn it , but they are getting a leg up due to their circumstances. This is different than absolute achievement. Getting out of college with a degree will not be as easy.
I assume you support the four RTTT goals that all go hand in hand to elevate charters. Standards are among those goals. So how can you support RTTT and then ignore the standard based tests scores. That is contradictory.
Anon says: "CAT has a majority population of poor children yet 80 percent of its seniors go to four-year colleges. What is mediocre about that?" But Anon, that is meaningless information with which to assess CAT unless we have comparison info for SFUSD's other high schools -- which I don't have. Based on the data that we DO have, which we can compare with SFUSD high schools, CAT shows up as mediocre at best.
Also, even if CAT's rate WERE impressive (and I don't have the figures, so I don't know), that would be skewed by the charter operator's grade-inflating policy of giving no grades lower than C. That means that every CAT student graduates qualified for CSU and UC -- ON PAPER, based on an artificially inflated grading system. Since SFUSD schools do not engage in the same artificially inflated grading system, its students are at a disadvantage by comparison.
Caroline, I believe you were asking about grade inflation and if it relates to college acceptance rates. I think minority kids from low performing groups get into colleges because they have facilitation. i suspect that CAT has a robust counseling and referral program to support their high college entrance goals. I mean if you are not raising test scores you've got to do something to get those kids into college, right?
This is from Brian Fox of SF Education Fund:
"San Francisco has the key components for promoting college access: community organizations provide wrap-around support for students whose life circumstances hinder their college dreams; schools are helping students and families complete financial aid forms; local colleges and universities are offering visits and fairs and dual enrollment programs;...". It goes on.
Notice that it he doesn't say anything about actual academic achievement. Achievement isn't necessary. The decline in achievement at CAT is living proof!
I did not intentionally leave out Affirmative Action, but that is a constant so it may not figure significantly into a comparison with a similar demographic across SFUSD. On the other hand, if the CAT college counseling program is better than what other students receive, the benficiaries of that counseling may be taking advantage of AA opportunities derived from that counseling - the value-added factor.
Poor minority kids who go to college had to get in on affirmative action and not by their own merits? Martin Luther King must be rolling over in his grave.
MLK is rolling in his grave all right. I don't believe that he would have ever accepted the idea of a two tier system - one for "colored", one for not. He was for equality of opportunity. But if you read my post which you apparently did not in your haste to respond to it, I said "minority kids from low performing groups", not just any kids of color. Big difference.
If you cannot win your argument on merit - play the race card. Sorry that doesn't work on me. If the district cannot make academic gains at the low end - play the race card. Say that equity isn't about opportunity alone, but about absolute test score achievement,too. Instead of making real change at the school level by focusing on the needs of given students and getting the right teachers and programs in place that target those needs, just spread the kids out and hope that peer influence and sheer numbers will solve the problem. We need better education strategies and methods than those employed at a casino.
Just to be clear, Don and Anon(s), I'm not accusing CAT of vague grade inflation. I'm referring to the official policy of requiring every student to achieve a C or higher in every course that's a college requirement before he/she may graduate. UCs and CSUs require a certain set of high school courses (known as the A-G requirements), with a grade of C or better in each, for admission. Most high schools will allow students to graduate with a D in required courses. So, unless no SFUSD students ever get D's in those courses, by definition all CAT students are graduating with CSU/UC requirements -- ON PAPER. But as is obvious, that's a recipe for grade inflation. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.
I left a sentence unfinished and may not have been clear, so I'll try again.
SFUSD students may and do graduate from high school even if they have a D in required courses, which means that inherently a number of SFUSD graduates are not qualified for CSU/UC admission.
CAT students are required to achieve a C in all required courses to graduate, which means that inherently all CAT students graduate qualified for CSU/UC admission -- ON PAPER. But, as I say, that policy is a recipe for grade inflation.
The next question is how many CAT students don't graduate because they did not get a C or how many get a C that deserve a D or F? Grades mean little as a qualitative metric for academic performance. And in an era of standards and numbers running, who knows what games CAT might play to keep their kids at C or better? But that goes for every teacher and principal that has a grading policy designed to increase self-esteem (including their own)at the expense of evaluative integrity. For all I know CAT is very forthright about grading and achievement. But you wouldn't know anything about that from reading Fuller's article. It is unprofessional for a professor and education policy analyst from UC Berkeley to author such an article that with NO verifiable academic data to support his lavish praise. Is it possible that he was called upon to do damage control and to use his authority to prop up the one silver lining in an otherwise bleak assessment of academic achievement at CAT?
And the irony of UC professor Bruce Fuller's shoddy editorializing should not be lost in the discussion. Here you have a numbers and data driven policy wonk overlooking the numbers and data. I guess grade inflation goes all the way to the top of academia. He must have self-esteem in spades.
This blogger is a little shrill and contorted in her attacks on charter schools. Especially given the fact that her children attend a faux-charter in School of the Arts that only hand picks it's students like no other public school in SF is allowed to do. SOTA has a system where majority kids with parents of means and private lesson get in..or friends of teachers and other upperclass affirmative action..if a Charter in SF were hand picking kids she'd be ballistic..but let's face it, what is good enough for her family is too bad for yours. You see, her family is gifted and talented and deserve the the self-congratulatory nods and rigged schools that keep out the riff raff. Her family deserves seperate but equal as long as her kids are more equal than yours
Personal attacks on me and inaccurate depictions of SOTA really don't add anything to the discussion -- in fact, all they do is confirm the validity of the original post, if the charter advocates have no defense other than to attack me.
What a joke..you claim pointing out your hypocrisy and double standards are personal attacks is just delusional. You are like Lynne and poppa Cheney. Can't handle facts, distort the truth, and cry foul when called out. Nice try.
Lisa: If you have a case to make for CAT well- make it.If all you can do is reject the case against CAT's test scores on the basis of a previous disagreement with the blogger on an entirely different subject, then it is obvious that you have no case to make and are disparaging your opponent's character in lieu of any other argument.
Caroline: There is much more to the debate for or against charters than the information that is generated by Green Dot and the AFT. The conversation does not have to be only about the propaganda that comes out of the press. I understand that you are taking on the role of "outer", which is fine. But don't believe that bringing truth to advertising (about charters) covers the story.
The topic of THIS blog post is the propaganda that comes out of the press. Actually propaganda is too kind a word, because what we're looking at here are false and misleading claims. I've made many other commentaries on charter schools.
If you want to expose the propaganda that comes out of the press you would not be focusing all your attentions on only the propaganda that comes from pro charter groups. If you were genuinely interested in exposing lies it would be all lies across the board, not just lies as you see it from one side of the debate – the side that you disagree with. If there are no lies coming from the other side then I would concede your point, but that is not the case.
We hear a lot about the procharter forces – the corporations and their well heeled benefactors. Who comprises the other side of the debate? – the established school bureaucracy and the teacher unions who want to preserve the status quo.
1.You often repeat that charters filter motivated students out through their application processes. Ever heard of the assignment system and school choice? Major contradiction or lie.
continued
2.Lowest performing schools have the lowest seniority members. Parents are not members of a l union and the bureaucracy serves the teacher need first, students second. In what other unionized industry do all the low seniority members work separated from their high seniority members? This is another great lie about equity. SFUSD knows what is best for their minority students and that would be putting them on a bus and sending them elsewhere than their own neighborhoods.
The establishment powerbrokers in education don't go around advertising the implications of these policies. Only recently are they being asked to attest to the value of their policies as charters question their assumptions – what went before without question. Had the union policed itself with more rigor they would not be in the situation they are today. It is sad because teachers are among the best citizens that society has to offer and they are being abused by their union leaders. continued
Every article you have written in your archive is anticharter. You have a bias and it is clearly your intention to expose the chicanery from only the charter side. That's why some of those who read here don't trust your opinion. You are editorializing in favor of the establishment and calling it a crusade for justice - truth in advertising. That is not exactly what you are doing.
It's true that I have never written a pro-charter school article. That's because I'm not a fan of charter schools, and there is such a massive amount of pro-charter-school propaganda coming at us from all sides that I put considerable energy into debunking and rebutting it. Since this is essentially an opinion forum, it doesn't entirely make sense to try to persuade me to write a pro-charter-school commentary. What you call a "bias" I call an informed opinion.
I am not trying to convince you to write a pro-charter piece.Trying to convince people about anything, like any good lawyer will tell you, has less to do with evidence and more to do with presentation. If you always opining and railing against the charter movement, those in the middle will question your views regardless of how good your evidence is, based on the your obvious bias. But if you appear more neutral and less outright dismissive then your analysis and opinion will take on greater gravity to those in the middle - the ones that seek out an informed perspective in formulating a view one way or another. In other words, if you are trying to convince people you are right you can't do so by bludgeoning or repetition. Subtlety will win because people dont wan't be told what is right or wrong, preferring to come to their own conclusions. You could make the case against charters every time, but it won't make any difference because you have lost your persuasive capital.
If your big issue is that I'm being less effective than I should be, does that indicate that you've come to agree with my viewpoint, Don?
But also, I'm quite willing to concede your point that I'm not as effective as I could be at making my case -- are you? Is any average person? But I think reality disproves your view that if I were just more effective, the world would be convinced. There are many, many voices making these same points, but so far making no impression upon the powers that be.
I believe that eventually lies reveal themselves for what they are. I watched Edison Schools lose its luster and credibility, for example, after being internationally praised as the solution based on lies and deception 7 or 8 years ago. Unless I'm wrong and the magical thinking is right, the same will happen with this current fad -- and when it does, I hope we can learn not to fall for hype and go to work seeking true solutions.
I remain cautiously optimistic about charters, never having held them up as a panacea or as a corruption of public education, even if I believe they could be both simultaneously. It is rarely discussed how utterly corrupt the current system is - how much power state and district administrators and politicians hold over the system and how little parents can do about the education at a school site. Many district staff and site administrators treat parent concerns with contempt and ridiculed. An educratic culture of disdain and disregard permeates modern educational bureaucracy.
I say - the closer the ties to the community the better the response to that community. To the extent that charters are more responsive (and we know that is not always the case)I am for them. I just see no hope for union reform or that the bureaucracy will reform itself. What have they offered except a repudiation of the competition? Nothing and as one union leader said parents are a lynch mob. He's close.
Based on my total of 24.5 kid-years, so far, as a highly involved SFUSD parent, I disagree with this. It absolutely does not jibe with my experience:
(Don says) "Many district staff and site administrators treat parent concerns with contempt and ridiculed. An educratic culture of disdain and disregard permeates modern educational bureaucracy."
I'm not saying things are perfect, but they're nowhere near that troublesome. And Don, since you constantly tell me my approach is ineffective, it seems like I have the right: Perhaps I could suggest that your own approach with district staff and site administrators might be worth reexamining if you're getting that kind of response?
My own personal experiences are a mix. I have met some very good people in administration (of course). But I am mainly taking my cues from the advocacy that I do with parents around the state and the bay area regarding site governance issues. These parent involvement issues are only one piece of the school puzzle but they speak to the culture in general. There are some very interesting developmenets at your alma mater across the way.
Right now you practically have to catch an ineffective principal commiting a felony to get that person removed. Principals should serve at the pleasure of the community they serve. Districts have almost zero interest in what the community thinks about their employees. Teachers, while mostly good, have a job for life regardless of their relationship with students and community. This lack of responsiveness creates a milieu that serves itself-entrenched and stale. Do you not see the dramatics calls for change? Your experiences must be very insular indeed.
I think that a total of 24.5 kid-years as an urban public school parent is the opposite of "insular," actually. Of course I see the calls for change, though a lot of them are coming from opportunists in pursuit of their own agendas who could give a **** about education and the well-being of children. But naturally I see the problems too. But these faddish, magical-thinking miracle solutions are a fraud, taking us in the wrong direction rather than helping find real solutions. When the Chronicle prints false information hyping a non-solution as the miracle cure, that does harm, and that's why I call it out.
IAll charters shouldn't be cast adrift because of some bad eggs. Why do that to charters and not regular schools? Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is no large overriding charter movement. It is as wide and varied as states and regions. It is too simple to reject the idea wholesale.
What is the miracle thinking you mentioned? Charters? Don't pidgeon hole the privitization idea as a miracle cure. It is new school management one different from the next.
But the news article that this blog post about does exactly that -- pigeonholes charter schools as a miracle cure. What does it say CAT is doing that it claims (despite being contradicted by all factual evidence) is so miraculous? Just being a charter.
In fact, charter schools are very often held up as the miracle cure for education. That's the basis of the part of the notions in No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top that if a school doesn't measure up, it will be turned into a charter school. Note that in the New Orleans school district, turning a bunch of the schools into charters is supposed to be the key to success. Some charter advocates say ALL schools should be charters.
I don't believe you can paint the disparate and multifaceted charter phenomenon with such a broad brush. Most inner city charter serve predominately low income students, even if some creaming takes place just as it does under the SFUSD's current application assignment system. Turning around a largely low performing population takes time. And new institutions can't be expected to create a optimally functioning model overnight. The charters have had tremendous enrollment increases over the last couple of years and data is too nascent to be of value yet. Secondary schools also have to remediate years of elementary underperformance
If you are committed to a 100% government provided education system then you are going to be against charters on principle. If not, it stands to reason that new models must be given some kind of reasonable trial period. A friend of mine who helped to start New West CS in west LA gave me a long explanation of the difficulties in creating a charter at present.
I understand the grade inflation point and it is obviously correct. I didn't feel that there was anything more to add at SFGate to what you said.
The other point about the Fuller article is that CAT did not write it and should not be faulted for self promotion at least in that instance. Maybe Fuller was just a surrogate. I don't know.
Also, friends in LA who work with parent groups confirmed the rumors about payment, fast food gift cards, in return for petition signitures. Parent Revolution, a rebranding of the Parent's Union, is using all the campaign tricks they can muster. But if they are so concerned about parent power why are they not providing the training for them to develop capacity as leaders? That to me says a lot about their intentions. But PR is just one rather well funded procharter contingent.
But you were right about the rumors so I owe you an apology.
To fault every charter at every turn and to say NOTHING about the approximately 50% below or far below basic statistics across California is another way of distorting the media picture. Every year schools churn out their newest class of drop outs and flunkies and no significant ed policy changes have been instituted of any consequence. Is it any wonder legislators use violent imagery to incite a revolution to execute the perpetrator with a gun.It is that bad.
Caroline, you say charters are not the answer. So what is? I haven't seen any alternative reforms of substance proposed by charter opponents. That's why, even when opponents raise valid criticisms, they are dismissed as the sour grapes of the forces of the establishment who refuse ANY kind of substantial reform that reduces the power of their bureaucracies or the unions. Their inertia has caught up with them and a new unforeseen coalition is asking for their heads. And a new estate charter begins. Untested yes - premature, no
When the June CREDO study was released, charter opponents jumped at the opportunity to brand the movement a failure. With 46% no better, 37% worse and only 17% better than trad schools it didn't look good for charters. But such rudimentary analysis proved that the devil was in the details. First off, those numbers can also be expressed as 63% being as good or better. And as the author noted, half the students tested were in first year start-up schools. 2rd and 3th year students did far better.
Some states have poor authorization standards and no caps, i.e. Arizona, and they faired poorly. Those with rigorous accountability did better than their traditional counterparts. Charters clearly must do a better job of policing themselves than traditional school authorizers.
Charter opponents often maintain privatization will be the death knell for an educated society. Such hysteria should not dominate the debate. We have unacceptably high academic failure now. Let some experimentation
Don, Your interpretation of the CREDO results is astute.
The past nine months have been all sorts of reading of the numbers depending on which side of the edu-philosophical playing field you're on. I suspect we would see something similar if such a study was done on non-chartered schools.
Good and bad schools come in all kinds, and there is no such a thing as a magic bullet. Therefor, in my humble opinion, we're better of with a diversity of school types, with a focus on quality over flavor.
Now, before it might be assumed that I am protective of charter schools that do not perform well, please understand that is not the case. As Don pointed out, there are states that have charter school laws that effect such schools to a negative, and there are schools that are simply not cutting the mustard. Again, quality over type should be emphasized for all education options.
I certainly agree that quality should be emphasized.
My issue is that there's massive hype claiming that charter schools ARE the magic bullet, and that hype is coming from the White House and the major media, among other ultra-powerful (and wealthy) sources. The skeptics are scattered, tiny, feeble voices by comparison.
A newspaper editorial writer who has written many pro-charter editorials told me that it's better to do something, ANYTHING, than nothing. I'm still flummoxed by that notion -- would it apply to medical treatment?
And note the recurring theme of my recent posts -- charters that are NOT successful are being falsely hyped as successful. I refer specifically to most of the Green Dot charter chain in L.A. and to Envision's City Arts and Tech in San Francisco. How does it serve anyone to put out false information inaccurately hyping struggling schools as successful, just because they're charters?
Pages