Creaming, Part 2

Yesterday, I wrote about the relevance of the "creaming" accusation with respect to analyzing the relative performance of charter schools as compared to traditional public schools.  (One commenter made a good point that will probably lead to a follow-up post.)  In this post, I will write about the relevance of "creaming" with respect to equity (or "fairness") issues and school funding issues. 

As far as the fairness of "creaming",  I focus on fairness to students.  First of all, as must be mentioned frequently, charter schools accept students based on a lottery that parents voluntarily enter.  It seems uncontroversial that educational options are a good thing for the students that are entered into the lottery.  What about the kids that are "left behind"?  All evidence I have seen suggests that they, too, are better off in that traditional public schools respond positively to pressures from competitive school options.  I have never seen an analysis that suggests that schools get worse when faced with competition.  In addition, the most obvious policy response to the "left behind" issue is to increase the availability of good educational options while shutting down bad ones.  The remaining fairness argument is that it is unfair to sort students based on parental choice (or lack thereof).  I disagree with this argument because I think it is impractical, ineffective, and inconsistent, but I can't reject it completely.  If we insist on this principle, I would suggest that we randomly assign students to all available school options. 

The most maddening aspect of the fairness argument is its frequent inconsistent application.  The vast majority of people that make this argument support the right of parents to send their kids to private school (if they can afford it) or to a selective magnet school (if their kids can pass the test).  In other words, if you are rich or have really smart kids you can sort yourself, but otherwise you can't.  My impression is that there is only a small minority that support complete, unqualified forced integration regardless of wealth, ability, or any other factor.  Again, if these people win the day, I would still hope that charter schools are allowed to compete. 

The final "creaming" issue involves funding.  Should schools that educate more difficult populations receive additional funding?  I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I think that charter schools should be treated consistently with traditional public schools.  I would note the following:

1. Bloomberg's "Fair Student Funding" effort will address this issue at traditional public schools by providing different amounts of funding to different "types" of students based on need.   

2. On the surface, charter schools receive less funding than traditional public schools.  I actually calculate the difference to be $12,400 versus $20,300.  However, some of this gap can be explained by different student populations.  In particular, we spend much more money on kids in special education schools.

3. Unfortunately, I don't think the DOE gives sufficient information to fully untangle the funding issue.  I am still working on this and would appreciate help!  In any case, I have never heard someone argue that charter schools in NYC receive more funding than traditional public schools even if one adjusts for student populations.

Comments

[matthew]

The Fair Student Funding initiative has been the subject of some study by Amy Schwartz at NYU, who might prove an ally in untangling DoE funding information.

[Tim Fite]

Please, please, please: write a letter now to letters@times-dispatch.com (up to 300 words) responding to the Feb 14 letter, below. This household is so reflexively anti-choice it is frightening. The Richmond community is waking up to choice, I believe, and we could use some outside agitators.

Thank you.

In two recent Op/Ed columns, Bill Gates and Gerald Robinson extol the benefits of charter schools as a model for school improvement. Both point to the success some of these schools have had with children who traditionally don't perform well.
Gates and Robinson claim charter schools do not have "cream of the crop" students, since they are chosen by lottery. Both overlook the fact that because a parent must apply in order to put a child into a lottery, it creates a system that is selective and excludes children, including the neediest, lowest-performing students from the most dysfunctional, disinterested families.
The application process ensures a minimum level of parent knowledge and interest in a child's education. These parents care about and have the knowledge and skill to get an application, fill it out, submit it by a deadline, and often provide transportation to and from school for the child.
Family participation in education is twice as predictive of student academic success as family socioeconomic status. Decades of research shows that when parents are involved in a child's education, students have higher grades, test scores, graduation rates, better school attendance, increased motivation, better self-esteem, lower rates of suspension, and fewer instances of violent behavior.
While there may be some "successful" charter schools, there is no way to know if this success is related to what happens at school or what happens at home.
Sandra Lee-Muzik. Richmond.

[Jacob]

I've really enjoyed reading both of your posts on creaming, and I think you offer a very cogent analysis of the issue. But as I see it the whole argument misses the point. I don't think charters are creaming, but even if they were, so what?

1) successful charter schools like KIPP and achievement 1st... have college going rates around 90-95%, would those kids have gotten into a college from their trad. public school? maybe some would, but it's doubtful as many would make it.

2) So long as anyone is welcome, parents who make the effort to apply for a spot in a charter school deserve a better option! They've "earned it." You might argue that poor parents who work longer hours are less able to apply because of their schedule, but I find that unconvincing.