Adding more fuel to the school choice debate is a recent study of the Philadelphia school system which has been experimenting over the last several years with turning over public schools to private operators. I'm not that familiar with the program, but it seems to be a kind of beefed up version of the charter system we have in New York. Anyway, after years of this program, the study has found that the traditional public schools outperformed the privately-managed schools on test scores and in terms of closing the achievement gap.
With information like that, I wonder if we'll start hearing arguments about how we should turn over private schools to public control.
As I would say if the results were reversed, I find it hard to believe that the governance structure of these schools matters more than what actually happens in the classrooms. That just doesn't make sense to me. So the real question is not why don't we make every school in Philadelphia a government-operated public school? The question is, what did the public schools do that made them more effective in this instance? Does it have to do with curriculum, class sizes, teacher preparation, social services, or something else entirely? To my mind, the difference in achievement matters less than what causes the difference. Because once we find that out, we can focus on what works and eliminate what doesn't. Then it won't matter who's running the schools.
Showing posts with label private schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label private schools. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
It's Not the Governance
A pair of researchers at the University of Illinois conducted a study comparing math standardized test scores in private and public institutions. It seems like I've seen this study before. Except this time, the results are a little bit different. According to this study, it was the public school kids who did the best.
Talk about flying in the face of expectations.
The researchers looked at a variety of possible explanatory factors and found that the ones that seemed to make the difference were certified teachers and using "modern, reform-oriented" curricula. In other words, good teaching leads to good learning. Note that what made the difference was not what kind of governance the schools operated under. What matters in the classroom is what happens in the classroom, not the boardroom.
I think that has to be a key point here. Certainly, the guiding hand of governance is and will be a factor in what happens in the classroom. However, simply creating a private school (or charter school) seems unlikely to drastically improve learning, no matter what the rhetoric tells us.
The other interesting flip here is that the autonomy of private schools isn't necessarily working to their benefit. Take note all you, "the free market will force schools to improve" people. The researchers say that schools may be driven by parents' desire to follow a "back to basics" math curriculum rather than keep up to date with more effective modern ideas on math instruction. Yes, those schools may be following what the market wants, but the market is not asking for what research indicates is the best for student learning.
Frankly, this study is probably an outlier as everything else I read seems to be saying that public schools are at the bottom of whatever schooling hierarchy exists. But it does re-raise the crucial point that good teaching - more than any system of governance - leads to good learning. If we're serious about improving education, we need to look at what's actually working in the classroom, not who's calling the shots in the boardroom.
Talk about flying in the face of expectations.
The researchers looked at a variety of possible explanatory factors and found that the ones that seemed to make the difference were certified teachers and using "modern, reform-oriented" curricula. In other words, good teaching leads to good learning. Note that what made the difference was not what kind of governance the schools operated under. What matters in the classroom is what happens in the classroom, not the boardroom.
I think that has to be a key point here. Certainly, the guiding hand of governance is and will be a factor in what happens in the classroom. However, simply creating a private school (or charter school) seems unlikely to drastically improve learning, no matter what the rhetoric tells us.
The other interesting flip here is that the autonomy of private schools isn't necessarily working to their benefit. Take note all you, "the free market will force schools to improve" people. The researchers say that schools may be driven by parents' desire to follow a "back to basics" math curriculum rather than keep up to date with more effective modern ideas on math instruction. Yes, those schools may be following what the market wants, but the market is not asking for what research indicates is the best for student learning.
Frankly, this study is probably an outlier as everything else I read seems to be saying that public schools are at the bottom of whatever schooling hierarchy exists. But it does re-raise the crucial point that good teaching - more than any system of governance - leads to good learning. If we're serious about improving education, we need to look at what's actually working in the classroom, not who's calling the shots in the boardroom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
