Posted on 02/14/2018 8:38:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Kids who attend New York City's Success Academy charter schools do remarkably well.
"We are No. 1 in student achievement in the state," says founder Eva Moskowitz, "outperforming all the wealthy suburbs."
They do. Although they teach mostly poor kids, 95 percent pass the state math test, and 84 percent pass the English test. Pass rates at government run schools are 38 and 41 percent. How does Success Academy do it?
For one thing, she keeps kids in class longer. Middle schoolers stay until 4:30 p.m.
Is that too much stress for kids, I ask?
"China and India are not worrying about the length of the school day," she replied. "We have to toughen up."
From what I saw, "toughening up" doesn't make kids hate school. Many told me they "look forward" to going to Success Academy in the morning. One called school "rockin' awesome!"
"Kids like succeeding," explains Moskowitz.
Despite this success, or because of it, the education establishment hates Moskowitz.
When she tries to open new schools, activists protest. New York City's Mayor Bill de Blasio complained, "It's time for Eva Moskowitz to stop having the run of the place!"
"Why do they hate you?" I asked.
"What we prove is that there's nothing wrong with the children," she replied. "There is something wrong with a system, a monopolistic system that is not allowing kids to succeed."
Mayor de Blasio got his political start as a socialist, has praised Cuba and Venezuela, and isn't fond of competition. To protect New York City's taxi industry, he tried to block Uber and Lyft.
He doesn't understand that competition helps more people than it hurts.
Some specific criticisms of charters like Success Academy:
Criticism No. 1. They are "a scam," says "Young Turks" TV commentator Nomiki Konst, "better funded -- by these hedge funders -- and they're performing worse than underfunded schools."
But Konst is wrong. Charters like Success Academy do more with less. New York City's regular public schools get $20,000 per pupil.
"I only get $14,500," says Moskowitz.
Criticism No. 2. They get better results because they just accept better students. They skim the cream off the top.
"Simply not true," replied Moskowitz. "We admit by random lottery."
That's also true. But one educator who watched my YouTube video on Success Academy emailed me with Criticism No. 3: "Only certain parents enter lotteries. You don't have the homeless kids, foster kids, kids whose parents are in jail."
Fair point. I asked Moskowitz about that.
"Most of our kids are from very poor families," she replied. "Yet they significantly outperform kids from suburbs ... where the average household income is eight or nine times what our families earn."
And even some homeless kids flourish at her schools, she says. "About 1 in 10 of our scholars are homeless, yet 97 percent of them passed the state math exams and 84 percent passed reading."
Criticism No. 4: Charters kick out problem kids or "counsel them out." They demand so many meetings with parents that parents eventually withdraw their kids.
But "our retention rate's higher than the city schools'!" answered Moskowitz. She's right. Only 10 percent of kids leave her schools, while 13 percent leave regular schools before completion.
Criticism No. 5: Some charters turn out to be worse than government-run schools. That's true. But the beauty of choice (a market) is that the good schools grow while inferior ones close. For years, bad government schools never closed.
In her new book, "The Education of Eva Moskowitz," she explains that she's a Democrat who didn't always believe in school choice.
"I was blinded, I think, by a belief that big government was a good thing."
Now she knows better.
Many families also now know charters may be better. Parents line up for lotteries where government rations out the small number of admissions. Kids who don't get picked sometimes cry.
It's cruel and unnecessary for government to limit choice this way, but many politicians have an investment in maintaining the power of bureaucrats and teacher unions.
Thankfully, some kids will have better lives because people like Eva Moskowitz fight the system.
Exactly as one would expect.
High standards yield high achievers.
Our top universities used to have high standards.
But now, meah.
Catholic schools in minority neighborhoods have done this for decades. The only difference here is the school is secular.
But one educator who watched my YouTube video on Success Academy emailed me with Criticism No. 3: "Only certain parents enter lotteries. You don't have the homeless kids, foster kids, kids whose parents are in jail."
Fair point. I asked Moskowitz about that.>/i>
"Most of our kids are from very poor families," she replied. "Yet they significantly outperform kids from suburbs ... where the average household income is eight or nine times what our families earn."
And even some homeless kids flourish at her schools, she says. "About 1 in 10 of our scholars are homeless, yet 97 percent of them passed the state math exams and 84 percent passed reading."
The fact that she takes 10% homeless isn't a complete response to the claim that only "certain parents" enter lotteries. It is entirely possible that some kids who are homeless do have better parent/parents than some of the kids in public schools. Maybe they're poor, but they may still care about education at some level.
But in a sense, that doesn't matter to the point. Because even if part of the reason she's doing so much better is that she's not getting the "worst of the worst" students, that just proves that a major part of the problem is the students themselves, and/or their parents. Not a lack of funding.
While there’s a cultural element to the US that would probably prevent US schools from being as effective, going back to the academic model that Asian and Indian schools use would likely bring scores up. Kids in those schools sit in rows of desks, generally wear uniforms, and are instructed using methods that used to be used here (rote memorization of basic arithmetic; sentence structure; penmanship; history as mostly-rote memorization and mostly national; science as presented theory supplemented with labs in more senior grades; and so on). Then, the kids are *expected* to spend at least 2-3 hours a night working on homework to help reinforce the material presented to them during the day.
And all this is done at far lower cost per pupil than any US school.
Oh, and kids who fail get held back. No grade inflation, no self-esteem “A for effort even though you got the answer wrong”.
Granted that in those countries’ school systems, class standing at certain grades dictates the level of school you move on to. Kids who don’t do as well end up getting routed into less-demanding schools, which result in them having lower chances of being accepted into the more rigorous colleges/universities, and thus they don’t get shots at the most coveted jobs. So there’s a huge pressure component, because in those societies how well you do has a far greater impact on your chances of getting a good job once you graduate from college.
But one educator who watched my YouTube video on Success Academy emailed me with Criticism No. 3: "Only certain parents enter lotteries. You don't have the homeless kids, foster kids, kids whose parents are in jail."
Fair point. I asked Moskowitz about that.
"Most of our kids are from very poor families," she replied. "Yet they significantly outperform kids from suburbs ... where the average household income is eight or nine times what our families earn."
And even some homeless kids flourish at her schools, she says. "About 1 in 10 of our scholars are homeless, yet 97 percent of them passed the state math exams and 84 percent passed reading."
The fact that she takes 10% homeless isn't a complete response to the claim that only "certain parents" enter lotteries. It is entirely possible that some kids who are homeless do have better parent/parents than some of the kids in public schools. Maybe they're poor, but they may still care about education at some level.
But in a sense, that doesn't matter to the point. Because even if part of the reason she's doing so much better is that she's not getting the "worst of the worst" students, that just proves that a major part of the problem is the students themselves, and/or their parents. Not a lack of funding.
Sure he does. He just doesn't care, because there's no payoff for him if other people are free to achieve their own goals through their own efforts.
I have no problem whatsoever with parents who care about their kid’s education actually getting better educations for their kids. No problem at all.
I hope so, but that is a fairly incredible claim. #1 in a state with a population of 20 million?
One HUGE factor in this success is not so much the longer hours, but the fact that the kids are away from dysfunctional parents during those hours.
Other studies have shown that it is more cost effective in terms of academic success to invest money in teaching parents how to parent rather than pouring it into more teachers, smaller classes, better school equipment, or anything else that the liberals/NEA claims will improve performance.
I think these 2 are closely related issues.
vs
You didn't build that.
Very well said.
Correct -- challenge kids and you will be surprised. Everyone loves to achieve and to do better.
“..but the fact that the kids are away from dysfunctional parents during those hours.”
Our church started a high school for kids with problems (drugs, drinking, etc.) and also just for kids that didn’t fit in with public schools.
They soon realized that no matter how much of a Christ-centered education and counseling was provided, if the kids just went back to the same dysfunctional homes and friends, they soon were off the rails.
They ended up buying two houses next to each other across from our church (and the school in one of the churcch buildings). A husband and wife team run each home, with 8 boys in one, and 8 girls in another. It then became a plan that when other houses went up for sale the church would by them - figuring that in ten years we would have four more houses or something.
The following year five homes went up for sale on that block - which of course was not in the plan. But - the church put out an appeal for fund-raising to try and buy some of them. We raised enough money to buy all five!
Some have been converted to student housing, and some are being used by church staff until the budget increases to be able to handle more students (and husband and wife teams).
It is really amazing to hear the kid’s stories - maybe five times a year one of them will get up and talk during a service. Almost all of them figure they would be dead without the school. “Next year I am going to the University and plan on studying Civil Engineering” was the latest guy. Most of them want to get into counseling or social services to help other kids like they had been helped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.