Great Public Schools Now is an organization endowed with a TON of money from Eli Broad, whose mission is “ensuring all Los Angeles students receive a high-quality education by accelerating the growth of high-quality public schools.” It has become a major point of contention, as UTLA dubbed it the “Broad-Walmart plan” and the LAUSD Board has expressed concerns about the effect it might have on enrollment.
But after all the hoopla that surrounded the group this year, they went ahead and awarded three grants – one to Teach For America, one to an after school program called Heart of LA, and one to Equitas Charter Academy.
The grant to Equitas, for $2 million, interested me for a couple of reasons. 1.) The grant is to build a new school building, which would most definitely reduce enrollment for the district (which is the kind of press GPSN is trying to avoid). 2.) I have known people who worked there and they all had nice things to say about it. 3.) It is BES school, much like Endeavor and Valor, which have had relatively strong track records.
So I wanted to know something basic: Does the data show that Equitas deserves $2 million?
Their state-testing data is quite good compared to the three local elementary schools around them. I can only compare their 3rd and 4th grade scores, but they really stand out:
Equitas outperforms the local schools by quite large margins on every test except 3rd grade math. We are talking wide margins. And 75% met or exceeded in 4th grade ELA is something to marvel at.
They also have a large population of socio-economically disadvantaged students: 95.1% of the students (of the whole school) receive Free or Reduced Price Meals, which is similar to the schools around it. The demographics also match the Pico-Union schools (although there is definitely some kind of reporting error on their demographics this year because it says they are 55% white….yet last year they were 97% Latino.)
So yes, according to the data, they deserve the money. Now, hopefully the building that Eli Broad pays for you to build will be better than the ones that his company built in Florida.
The central issue is not whether they deserve the money or not…who’s not happy to hear about expanded programs and facilities for students?….it’s great for THEM….the more important issue is the impact on the education system/LAUSD as a whole….what direction should it go?…..how do we best help ALL the students in our PUBLIC education system?
I see no evidence that Broad’s/GPS’s mission of “ensuring all Los Angeles students receive a high-quality education by accelerating the growth of high-quality public schools” actually works. Simply put, it may work for THOSE selected (or those who self-select), but for ALL it has a negative impact, siphoning off the most able students, leaving the traditional schools neglected and worse off (and then perversely criticized). So, while should feel good that some students would benefit from an injection of funds, we also need to question the intentions of private entities making financial contributions and influencing policy, and we need to make sure that the public, the media, and our elected officials understand the broader (pun-intended) consequences.
Bright new schools, the expansion of “choice” via Magnets and Charters, and higher scores make for good headlines, but often mask the real story. Which should we be more concerned with? I believe we should refocus our energy, our ideas, and our budgets on ALL.
Finally, I’d like to point out that just because School A has a similar “disadvantaged” student population as School B, and School A is getting higher scores than School B, it doesn’t mean that School A is doing a better job with instruction, and should therefore be held up as a model. More often than not, School A has more able students to begin with. We see this all the time with Magnets and Charters that serve the same neighborhoods.
First of all, that pun was beautiful. Well done.
I think you make a really interesting point, one that was recently conceded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gates-education-20160601-snap-story.html). I don’t like to step into this debate, but I’ll say this: It was not my experience that charter schools siphon off more able students. In my experience in charter schools and traditional schools, you get who you get and you don’t get to choose. The only exception to that rule is moderate to severe IEPS, which I have seen many charters council out.
As a response to your last paragraph, I would say that I would love to do cohort analysis like some university studies, but that data just isn’t public. I am just making assertions based on the publicly available information, which is what most parents will take into consideration.
When I say “siphoning,” I don’t mean to imply that Charters and Magnets are manipulating who gets in and who doesn’t. I mean, I’m sure that sometimes happens, as you stated with your knowledge of IEP students, but most of the siphoning is a result of parents self-selecting their own kids. These are the knowledgeable, active parents who raise more able kids. Magnets used to be safe havens for white families to send their kids (but failed in this attempt to force voluntary integration…that’s a beautiful oxymoron, but that’s what the goal was); now, they and Charters are safe havens for the shrewdest of the “disadvantaged.” Where does that leave the rest?
You mentioned cohort analysis. Do universities have access to the data? I would be interested in seeing pre-/post- academic performance data of “disadvantaged” students who have attended both traditional schools and either a Charter or Magnet.
Finally, parents who are sending their kids to Charters and Magnets may very well be making the best choice for their own kids. I advised a friend a few days ago to consider doing just that. This speaks to the heart of the problem: what’s better for one’s own children may not be in the best interest of everyone’s children. But, I have to fall back on the idea that we have/need a PUBLIC education system…and the current expansion of Charters and Magnets is ultimately unethical and not in the best interest of ALL.
[…] Great Public Schools Now isn’t just targeting schools in Pico Union – it is focusing on 10 different areas of Los Angeles that they have deemed to be high-need. I am going to take a look at each of those areas in a segment I will call “Game of Broads”, with one essential question – Who deserves Eli Broad’s money? […]
[…] Equitas Charter Academy received $2 million from GPSN earlier this year. And I wrote about how Equitas probably deserved the money. But did Equitas have to apply for that money and compete against other charters? When that […]