THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is right to have long supported the Metropolitan Council for Economic Opportunity (METCO), through which more than 3,300 Boston and Springfield students attend school in surrounding suburbs each year. METCO has two basic goals: to bring diversity to suburban communities and to provide urban families with meaningful school choice options.
When it comes to the choice prong of METCO’s mission, the program bears much resemblance to the Commonwealth’s charter public schools. But Juan Cofield, who heads the NAACP’s New England Area Conference, also chairs a campaign to oppose charter school expansion in Massachusetts.
While METCO and charters share many similarities, they often draw dramatically different reactions. Opponents accuse charter schools of self-selection bias, claiming that only the most involved and motivated parents seek to enroll their children. What then to make of METCO, where parents placed fully one-quarter of current students on the program’s waitlist during the first year of their child’s life? That suggests an extremely high level of motivation.
Opponents claim that charter schools “cream” the best students. Yet while charters admit students by lottery when the schools are oversubscribed – which they invariably are – METCO selectively chooses Boston students and in Springfield, the city’s school district picks which students to admit to the program.
The loudest anti-charter howls are about money, even though state law calls for school districts to receive more than two years’ worth of funding over a six-year period after a student chooses to leave for a charter school. Charter reimbursements have been fully funded in 12 of the 17 years since 2000. Boston and Springfield, on the other hand, receive no reimbursement when a student is selected for the METCO program.
Despite selection and funding processes that are demonstrably more democratic and more generous than METCO’s, charter schools are the subject of unrelenting hostility. There is nary a hint of opposition to the METCO program.
To be clear, these comparisons are in no way meant to denigrate METCO. In fact, Pioneer Institute has published two studies calling for the program to be expanded to other cities and its funding increased. But it is hard to ignore the difference in the reception METCO and charter schools receive in their communities.
Another thing the two programs share is a record of success. METCO performance data are not as accessible as we would like, but at least 15 percent more of the program’s students scored proficient or better on 2010 MCAS tests compared to their district counterparts in Boston and Springfield. METCO students also have significantly higher graduation rates.
As for charter schools, a 2015 Stanford University study found that Boston charters are doing more to eliminate the achievement gap between affluent and low-income students than any other group of public schools in the country. Earlier this year, an MIT study found that Boston charter school students have significantly higher SAT scores and are more likely to take Advanced Placement tests and attend four-year colleges than are their counterparts who entered charter lotteries but were not selected.
In 2014, 18 charter schools – many of them urban – had the best results in all of Massachusetts on various MCAS tests.
Strong demand is another attribute METCO and charter schools share. There are more than 34,000 students on charter school waitlists, while the average wait to get into METCO is about five years.
It’s hard to reconcile the positions of those who claim that charter schools “siphon” money from school districts and “cream” the best students, yet support METCO. The facts are clear: Both of these highly successful programs should be celebrated — and expanded.
Tom Birmingham was co-author of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 and is distinguished senior fellow in education at Pioneer Institute. Gerard Robinson is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and member of Pioneer Institute’s Center for School Reform advisory board.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
It’s imperative to narrowly focus the issue when it comes to supporting charter schools in an opinion piece so let’s start with some context. Tom Birmingham is identified as co-author of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act of 1993 which was forced by a 1993 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that the State’s Constitution imposes on the Commonwealth an enforceable duty to provide an education for all its children, rich and poor, in every city and town through the public schools. The SJC ruling came after a fifteen year long lawsuit was initiated in 1978 on behalf of students in certain property-poor communities who alleged that the school finance system violated the education clause of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Education Reform Act created the Foundation budget to address the inequities in school funding. That budget’s formula hasn’t changed in 23 years and a recently released report from the Foundation Budget Review Commission identified significant funding shortfalls in that formula in areas for Special Education, Low Income Students and English Language Learners. But instead of fully addressing the funding gap the Governor and the authors of this piece are calling for more charter schools. But that’s not all that’s going on. Governor Baker tweaked the formula for his FY2017 proposed budget causing Brockton to receive $9,541,735 less, Chelsea $4,216,724 less, Everett $4,649,387 less, Lawrence $1,968,545 less, Lynn $8,615,652 less, Revere $6,052,601 less, and Worcester $2,057,477 less. And that’s shortchanging a formula that already shortchanges those cities…and doing it just a few months before the new budget year begins. The public deserves an informed debate on the issues but charter school proponents can’t make their case that way.
Could it be as simple as the fact that Metco schools have union teachers, and union bus drivers taking the kids to those schools? So no union jobs are lost when kids choose Metco. That seems to be the sole issue underlying all this.
No one tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The American system would punish that. And who is going to go first, knowing that the other side will only use it against them.
But its clear to me that the anti-charter peoples lies and omissions are much bigger.
The biggest lie is the whole story that charters drain money from the district. No, every single child in a charter is someone the district would have to pay to educate. My daughter is not costing you more money. We are not the problem and you have to stop saying we are. I do not know why the Mayor lets them keep saying this lie.
All these other lies about charters are just not true in Boston. Almost all are children of color and the schools are much better than the public schools.
If the Boston schools and the Boston teachers union are not willing to take the steps to make it work, that leaves no choices for families like mine. What am I supposed to do? Of course I am going to choose a charter. There is no way that my neighborhood schools will ever get better in time for my children.
.
No sure where you’re going with your comment. When Massachusetts charter school teachers join a union…they join the Teamsters. So what’s your point?
When a student leaves a public school district for a charter school, the sending district loses approximately the average per pupil spending. The biggest problem is while the receiving charter school receives that average per pupil dollar amount but the student may not be reflective of the sending district’s population. That means the charter school doesn’t incur the same level of costs per student for English Language Learners, Special Education, etc. but the sending public school district now has more costs coming out of a smaller pot of funds.
Since you’re focused on Boston charter schools I looked up the U.S. News & World Report’s highest rated city charter school: Boston Collegiate Charter School. That charter school’s 2015 annual report states “Every member of the senior class earned an acceptance to at least one four-year college,” which certainly gives the appearance of being high performing but it’s important to go deeper into its operations to get a clearer picture. The graduating class with 56 students started in 2008 with 88 students in grade 5 so 36% of those students enrolled in the 5th grade didn’t make it to graduation. What’s even more interesting is while Boston Collegiate operates grades 5-12, that charter school does not accept any students after grade 8. In other words, even though Boston Collegiate operates a high school there is no way a student can access grades 9-12 without mostly coming up through grades 5-8. How is it even possible to compare a charter school operating under those circumstances with the City of Boston’s public high schools that accept students in all grades…beginning of the year, mid-year and at the end of the year? How many charter schools limit access to higher grades? Is that a strategy you think public school districts should have? If a student’s family is forced to move for whatever reason and that student is entering into grade 9 then…they’re out of luck for a high school education?
Boston Collegiate Charter School’s high school enrollment policy is detailed in its application: “The school does not accept additional students into the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades either for slots in the classes or for positions on the waiting list. Therefore, the school does not maintain a waiting list after the 8th grade for admission into the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades, and the school will not admit additional students to those classes, even if enrolled students leave the school. This policy applies to siblings of enrolled students, as well.” So, Boston Collegiate Charter School’s high school enrollment policy is there is no high school enrollment.
What’s interesting about charter school lotteries is they’re not as open to everyone as you’d expect. The U.S. News & World Report’s highest rated Massachusetts public high school is the Sturgis Charter Public School. Siblings of current students are guaranteed seats in each year’s freshman class which means for at least the past few years about 40% of the entering freshmen at Sturgis are siblings. That means only about 60% of seats are available through the lottery. YouTube has a video of a recent Sturgis lottery. The person running the lottery said that year had the highest number of applicants…582…which was one more applicant than the previous year…one more applicant. There were 212 seats available or 22 more than the previous year. As the lottery was about to begin there was an announcement that 79 siblings of current students were automatically included in the class and the lottery would start with seat #80. That meant 38% of seats were filled by giving a “preference” to siblings of currently enrolled students. They didn’t participate in the lottery at all. That’s one example of cherry picking. I wonder how the more than 500 applicants without siblings attending Sturgis Charter Public School felt about that. An article in Cape Cod Times, “Report, Cape official blast charter schools,” noted Sturgis’ executive director basically admits the sibling preference is cherry picking…that’s another way to describe “cream.”
The Sturgis Charter Public School does not accept students in grades 11 and 12. Sturgis’ student body is not reflective of the sending school districts’ student bodies. Forty percent of incoming freshmen are siblings of current students. But it’s the #1 ranked public high school in Massachusetts.