One of the most persistent myths in K–12 education is the idea that high-poverty schools are near-universally, significantly underfunded. However, the truth is much more complicated. As it turns out, poor districts get more money in almost every state—and school spending has an incredibly weak relationship with school quality in the first place.

This week, USA Today published another example of fearmongering, giving a Thursday article the inexplicable headline, “Enrichment only for the rich? How school segregation continues to divide students by income.” However, the research the article presents doesn’t exactly show the apocalyptic outcomes implied by the headline. In fact, the research it cites concluded that “poverty rates do not have a clear relationship” with local and state funding.

Reporter Alia Wong’s article is filled with heart-wrenching stories of schools with “regular lockdowns and the sound of gunfire in the lobby,” where “classrooms lacked basic supplies and teachers didn’t notice how often [a student] skipped class. Desks tended to be broken and textbooks decades old.”

While these situations are tragic, the reality is a bit more complex. Not only is the funding gap between wealthier and poorer schools found by the researchers smaller than you might think—it disappeared when dividing schools based on their poverty rates. Further, other research shows that school funding, and thus the chaotic, neglectful state of many failing schools, has basically no relationship with school quality.

The study, from education think tank Bellwether, examined schools in 123 metropolitan areas and classified districts into lower, middle, and wealthy based on how much local income and property values differed from the average in their metro area. The researchers did this in order to study funding differences between schools in the same area—meaning that some districts in the lowest category (what they called Opportunity Outsiders) are not actually high-poverty schools.

In all, researchers found that wealthy districts received the most total funding in their metro area just 39 percent of the time. However, they did find a modest, but significant funding gap between wealthier and poorer schools. The median Opportunity Outsider school spent $14,287 per pupil, while the median wealthy school (called Economic Elite) spent $16,702.

However, this gap all but vanished when the researchers reclassified schools not based on relative wealth but on their actual poverty rates. The study concluded that “poverty rates do not have a clear relationship with the amount of state and local revenue that districts receive.”

So, do the schools poor kids actually go to receive less funding? Not according to this study. Only the schools that are among the poorest in their metro area—which includes plenty of schools in wealthy areas, where the relatively poorest school has only average poverty—that face a funding gap.

And that’s only accounting for local and state funding. When you include federal funding, the situation becomes even better for high-poverty schools. According to research from the Urban Institute, when considering “federal, state, and local funding, almost all states allocate more per-student funding to poor kids than to nonpoor kids.” Just three states, Nevada, Wyoming, and Illinois have a “weakly” regressive funding structure.

If so many states allocate more money to poor districts, why do low-income schools have worse results? As it turns out, per-pupil spending doesn’t seem to impact school quality all that much. One 2012 report by Harvard and Stanford researchers, found that, on average, an extra “$1000 in per-pupil spending is associated with an annual gain in achievement of one-tenth of 1 percent of a standard deviation,” an increase the researchers say is “of no statistical or substantive significance.”

This isn’t to say that funding doesn't matter at all. Rather, low-income school districts tend to spend their funding less responsibly.

“More money can help schools succeed, but not if they fritter those extra resources in unproductive ways,” Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Reason last year. “There are many common ways that schools blow resources. Wasteful schools tend to hire more non-instructional staff while raising the pay and benefit costs for all staff regardless of their contribution to student outcomes.”

Despite the headlines pointing to the contrary, high-poverty school districts aren’t generally underfunded and funding gaps aren't responsible for lackluster academic performance. That’s not to say we shouldn't be concerned when poorer schools receive lower funding, but rather that the issues in underperforming schools almost certainly won’t be fixed by throwing more cash at the problem.

Editor’s note: This was first published on Reason.com.

“Math and reading scores for 13-year-olds have hit their lowest scores in decades.” When the recent NAEP long-term trend results for 13-year-olds were published, the reactions were predictable: short pieces in the national press and apologetics in education blogs. COVID-19, we were told, was continuing to cast its long shadow. Despite nearly $200 billion in emergency federal spending on K–12 schooling, students are doing worse than a decade ago, and lower-performing students are today less capable of doing math than they were thirty-five years ago.

What is striking has been the pervasive weariness evident in the commentaries on the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The news was heralded as “alarming,” “terrifying,” and “tragic.” As for responses? At the end of his piece on the results, AEI’s Nat Malkus concludes that “nothing less than Herculean efforts will make up for such shortfalls”—but on just what those efforts should be, he was silent. Writing for The 74, political scientist Vladimir Kogan concludes that “the new federal data send a clear message that we must do better”—but, once again, nothing about how.

Other responses have been predictable. In her blog, Diane Ravitch wrote: “Will politicians whip up a panicked response and demand more of what is already failing, like charter schools, vouchers, high-stakes testing, and Cybercharters? or [sic.] will they invest in reduced class sizes and higher teacher pay?” Her response points to a familiar split in the education policy community: On the one hand, the defenders of public education blame chronic underfunding of schools and of teacher salaries in particular, and an overreliance on teaching to the test. On the other, their conservative critics point to lack of school choice, poor teacher preparation programs, and (more recently) the woke invasion of classrooms.

Both sides are partially correct, of course: In multiple states, a heavy reliance on local property taxes to pay for education creates regressive per-pupil funding, meaning that more dollars go to the education of more affluent students. Teacher preparation still relies too much on textbook theory instead of clinical practice (a vital switch the medical profession made a century ago). Tests, especially in reading, are poorly designed (e.g., “Hamlet was confused because… A, B, C or D—circle the right response”). Too many parents are stuck sending their children to underperforming schools.

But these are just symptoms. Factors beyond the schoolhouse door—the legacy of race-based redlining, the underfunding of health care for the worst off, the lack of support for child care and parental leave, and other social and economic policies—remain hugely impactful. But inside the education system itself, the fundamental cause of poor outcomes is that education policy leaders have eroded the instructional core and designed our education system for failure.

Pre-K is a wild West, with the result that students enter kindergarten with large gaps in their readiness to learn. Children aren’t seriously assessed until they are 8, by which time it’s too late for sustained intervention; the gaps never close. Meanwhile, curricula, tests, and teacher education programs exist in deep silos, creating a fragmented system where teachers aren’t trained to teach the materials their schools use and tests don’t test students’ mastery of those materials (with a tiny exception in Louisiana).

Almost uniquely among advanced industrialized nations, U.S. school systems disconnect testing from student incentives. State tests are used to evaluate schools but are often irrelevant to students: Only eleven states still require high school exit exams for graduation, and there are often alternative pathways for those who fail the test. We don’t link the results of high school exit exams to college admissions—instead, using grade-point averages and tests like the ACT and SAT, which are disconnected from course curricula. Speaking of GPA, we have steadily inflated grades at school and college; We simply call success what was once failure.

We have also created a preferential ranking of subjects. Student achievement in reading and math, and, to a lesser extent, science, get all the attention, while students who are drawn to robotics, graphic design, the arts, environmental science, etc., can’t take high school assessments that count for entry into higher education. At the same time, with a few shining counterexamples, our career and technical learning options are a pale shadow of the world’s best: While Switzerland designs exacting pathways from school to employment with options for a return to higher education, America shunts millions of students into dead-end experiences, where they discover that their CTE has failed to provide an employment-ready credential. Many of these same students end up at community colleges with extraordinarily low graduation rates.

Perhaps in response to two decades of disappointing results, academic achievement itself is increasingly out of fashion. Critical thinking, metacognition, grit and positive mindset, and “21^st century skills” are in—competence in mathematics, not so much. It seems to have escaped us that students cannot think critically about nothing in particular; mastery of content is a prerequisite.

The turn away from academics is rocket-propelled by a genuine problem. American teenagers stare at social media on a screen almost nine hours every day, with one result being surging loneliness and depression. Many American school systems have reacted by putting social and emotional learning at the top of the agenda. Few would argue that students shouldn’t be given effective support; putting mental health counselors in large high schools, for example, makes sense. But the pretense that there is a new science of SEL is largely pablum. When you chase it to ground, what it means is that teachers should encourage, not discourage, students. A poor test result calls for more effort, not the conclusion that the child is bad at math. Such wisdom has been available for two thousand years.

To top it all off, the American K–12 education system spends at least $30 billion per year on educational technology with essentially nothing to show for it. As it was for the introduction of radio, then TV, then computers, so it is likely to be for artificial intelligence—the latest great hope to circumvent and supplant effective, inspiring teaching of children by a human being.

As we have sown, so shall we reap. The unique sense of achievement that a student experiences when she or he masters a rigorous skill, digs into deep knowledge, creates a piece of writing or art, completes a challenging science assignment or piece of music—this is all being washed away. We are tired of bad news, and our instinct is now to punish, or at least ignore, the messenger. But our students are desperately the worse for the mess we have made of their schooling.

Editor’s Note: This was first published in The 74.

In the effort to expand and diversify the teacher pipeline, states and districts have invested millions in actively recruiting and training teachers from local communities. Such “Grow Your Own” (GYO) programs exist in an estimated nine hundred school districts and in forty-nine states (Wyoming is the exception). Despite this growth, little research to date has examined the impact of GYO programs. Now, however, a new study by researchers from the University of Maryland and American University investigates how a Maryland GYO program affects the state’s teacher workforce, as well as educational and economic outcomes for students enrolled in schools with the program.

Like most but not all GYO programs, the Teacher Academy of Maryland (TAM) aims to draw high school students into teacher preparation pathways. (Other GYO programs target college students, education paraprofessionals, or other community members.) A Career and Technical Education (CTE) option, TAM offers a four-course sequence aligned with the requirements of the Maryland Associate of Arts in Teaching degree. After high school, TAM completers may take a special assessment to become immediately eligible for an educational support job, or they may transfer their credits toward a two- or four-year degree. The most recent statewide data indicate that nearly two thousand students participate in TAM at forty-three schools throughout seventeen of Maryland’s twenty-five school districts.

Using data from the state Department of Education and the Maryland Longitudinal Data System Center, the study examines professional, educational, and economic outcomes for 226,000 students who began ninth grade between 2008-09 and 2012-13. Using a research design called difference-in-differences, the researchers compare outcomes for students at high schools that implemented TAM during this period—not necessarily students who participated in TAM—to outcomes for students at schools without TAM. They control for gender, race/ethnicity, eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch, English language learner status, disability status, eighth-grade test scores, high school enrollment, and other system changes enacted during this period. The methodology allows us to infer causation, and the researchers conduct numerous robustness and sensitivity checks to confirm the validity of their findings.

The results were good news for TAM. First and foremost, attending a high school with TAM made students more likely to become public school teachers in Maryland by the age of twenty-five. Overall, this likelihood increased by 0.6 percentage points (pp), or 47 percent. The effect was largest for White and Black girls. The percentage point increase was higher for White girls (1.4 pp) compared to Black girls (0.7 pp), but because White girls already become teachers at much higher rates than any other subgroup, the percentage increase in teaching was much larger for Black girls (80 percent) than White girls (39 percent).

Notably, the mechanism by which White and Black girls later entered the profession differed. White girls exposed to TAM tended to complete the program and then obtain a traditional teaching license through a college degree. Black girls, on the other hand, were more likely to start the four-course sequence without completing it, then obtain a non-teaching college degree, and eventually earn an alternative teaching license. These differences deserve further investigation, as they suggest that TAM improved White girls’ access to traditional pathways, but for Black girls, it provided compelling information without necessarily improving that access.

Another notable set of findings reveals that the educational benefits of TAM extend beyond widening the teacher pipeline. Attending a school with TAM increased the overall high school graduation rate by 0.8 pp, or 1 percent. Among student subgroups, graduation rates improved most for Black girls (2.2 pp, or 3 percent), but they also grew for Black boys (1.3 pp, or 2 percent) and White girls (1 pp, or 1 percent). Exposure to TAM also increased overall enrollment in a four-year college by 1.7 pp (6 percent). This effect was largest for girls, with a 2.6 pp (8 percent) increase, and for Black boys, who experienced a 2.3 pp (11 percent) increase. Black boys and Asian girls exposed to TAM also completed BAs at higher rates than peers at schools without TAM (1.7 pp or 15 percent, and 5.8 pp or 10 percent, respectively).

The study also found long-term economic benefits to attending a school offering TAM. Overall, wages at age twenty-five were 5 percent higher, with the largest benefits for Black girls and Asian girls (each 18 percent higher). As the study’s authors point out, the increase in wages may undermine the popular narrative that a teaching career necessarily translates into lower pay. The mechanisms here are complicated—Asian girls’ economic gains, for example, seem to come from higher educational attainment, rather than a teaching career—but the researchers hypothesize that a school setting with TAM may encourage students to think more strategically about their career plans.

In sum, TAM benefits different students in different ways, but that makes it a win on several fronts: recruiting more teachers, improving academic outcomes for teacher-candidates, and improving earnings. The program has room for improvement—for example, by addressing the finding that TAM likely improves access to teacher pathways more for White girls than for Black girls—and GYO initiatives remain understudied, especially given the rate of their expansion and the variation among programs. Nonetheless, these findings provide encouraging evidence that GYO programs have the potential to make a difference for students present and future.

SOURCE: David Blazar, Wenjing Gao, Seth Gershenson, Ramon Goings, and Francisco Lagos, “Do Grow-Your-Own Programs Work? Evidence from the Teacher Academy of Maryland,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (May 2024).

Cheers

• So-called Renaissance Schools in Camden, New Jersey, which allow charter networks to take on failing schools, are pushing dramatic learning gains. —The 74
• "Teach your children to love America." —Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
• Dorothy Jean Tillman II just became the youngest person ever to earn a doctoral degree. —New York Times
• Pre-school provides a prime, early opportunity to begin building the knowledge requisite for reading comprehension in later grades. —Susan B. Neuman and Lily Wong Fillmore, The 74
• Texas House runoffs have given Governor Abbott enough votes to pass school choice legislation. —Texas Tribune

Jeers

• A new study claims that the science of reading has sucked the joy out of reading, overlooking the fact that not being able to read is pretty darn joyless. —Nick Morrison, Forbes
• Teachers report parents, students, and administrators all pressuring them to alter grades higher. —Education Week

• Falling enrollment thanks to demographic trends means that many districts will soon have to make hard decisions about school closures. — Marguerite Roza and Aashish Dhammani, The 74
• A surprising topic, algebra, has remained controversial, prompting ballot measures, tough family conversations, lawsuits, and protests across the country. —New York Times, New York Times, and EdSurge
• Confidence in the ROI of a college degree has decreased even as the wage premium for degree holders persists. —USA Today

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. Just sayin’. 

1. An internal audit of Akron City Schools was released on Friday. It was initiated at the behest of incoming superintendent Michael Robinson and conducted by an outside consultant. It is called the first time in decades (“if ever”) that the district has been evaluated by someone from the outside. I wish I could say the results are surprising—some pockets of positivity, with huge and glaring problems that are the general modus operandi day to day—but it just feels typical of more large urban school districts to me. There’s a lot to unpack, but let’s just leave it at this for now: “It is an understatement to say the culture is not one of accountability,” the report notes. “Many reasons created this problem, but the most significant is the administration's fear of the unions. Consequences are nonexistent. Poor performance is tolerated.” (Akron Beacon Journal, 5/25/24) The report concludes with as much positivity as it can: “APS has tremendous potential, but faces huge obstacles. Bold leadership is required. Hopefully this Report will provide a meaningful roadmap for dialogue, change, and most importantly a better education for APS students.” Interestingly, there has been no official responses from any quarter as yet, including the leader who commissioned the report to help him decide the way forward. I’m sure when those responses come, they will add even more layers to this story. (WKYC-TV, Cleveland, 5/24/24)
    
2. Speaking of large urban school districts, there’s not much new information in this piece, but it’s a nice catch up on the status of the crazy sideshow which threatens to derail the work of Columbus City Schools’ facilities task force before whatever happens next. I am encouraged by the stated determination of many administration and task force members to continue with the process, but I think that the first public meeting they are able to hold will be the true test of whether the process survives or not. (Columbus Dispatch, 5/28/24)
    
3. Speaking of students and families needing better options (were we?), here’s a look at the “voucher accountability” bill recently introduced in the Ohio House, aiming to allow for an “apples to apples” comparison of test scores between voucher-using students in private schools and their peers in district and charter schools. Judging from this write up, I think the bill’s supports are suggesting that private schools are secretly providing a lower-quality education to families without anyone knowing and this bill, if implemented, will finally “blow the lid off” that fact as a matter of vital public accountability. Personally, I doubt it. But even if it would turn out that some private school students are scoring lower and that fact were made known (say, via an internal audit or a bombshell memo leak or even something boring like a state report card), the schools would either ramp up their academic offerings, teach the kids, and boost the scores, or they wouldn’t. In the latter case, families would leave in droves and the schools would close. Either way: putative problem solved. The same simple solutions cannot be expected, I reckon, for the myriad problems—academic or otherwise—in the district schools these families have already opted out of. (See items 1 and 2, above.) That seems like a minimum bar to me, if we really want to compare our bin of apples properly… (Columbus Dispatch, 5/27/24)
   
   

4. Apropos of all the foregoing clips, here’s a great look at Notre Dame Academy, an all-girls Catholic school in Toledo, which is celebrating its 120th anniversary this year. It sounds incredible: high expectations; lots of opportunities to learn, grow, discover, and succeed; a supportive staff and community; a diverse student body; and the additional benefit of strong role models for young women in education, work, and life. (Why yes, they do take voucher students. The enrollment guru even says so in the article.) I will agree that this is all important, notable, and worthy of celebration—but I’d also say that it’s typical of the culture of most private schools I know. By which I mean, the opposite of almost every finding of that internal audit or that leaked memo we talked about above. Just to spell it out clearly for you. (Toledo Blade, 5/26/24)
   
   

5. Finally today, some late breaking good news from yesterday: The lawsuit challenging the transfer of the majority of K-12 education governance from the State Board of Education to the Department of Education and Workforce was dismissed by the judge overseeing the case. She did so not only because she determined the two plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit in the first place, but also “because the ability to define the powers and duties of the State Board of Education is expressly granted to the General Assembly by the plain language of Article VI, Section 4.” Meaning they would lose anyway if the suit proceeded. Awesome. Moving on! (Gongwer Ohio, 5/28/24)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Stories featured in Ohio Charter News Weekly may require a paid subscription to read in full.

Analysis of segregation data

In our last edition, we highlighted an important new report from researchers at Stanford and USC that indicates racial segregation in schools has been increasing over the last three decades, after a period of decline. The expiration of most federally-mandated desegregation orders in that timeframe is one big factor, but fingers also pointed at the expansion of charter schools. In the wake of the report, Brian Kisida, an assistant professor at the University of Missouri and a long-time researcher in this area, joined the Fordham Gadfly podcast to discuss the findings. Meanwhile, brightbeam CEO and lifelong activist for high-quality education Chris Stewart took to his Substack to lay out his case against the anti-charter framing, bluntly titled “Blaming charters for segregation is dumb”.

Waiting

A new report from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (DPI) shows strong and steady popularity for charter schools in the state. During the 2023-24 school year, 169 of the state’s 210 charters reported having a waitlist. Three dozen schools had a waitlist of 700 students or more and almost 40 percent of schools faced a waitlist of 200 students or more, all adding up to tens of thousands of Tar Heel students waiting for a new educational option. While recent legislative changes are expected to boost charter creation in North Carolina, DPI’s Office of Charter Schools director indicated that capacity won’t grow overnight. Three new charters are scheduled to open in fall 2024, she said, and 16 more are on track for fall 2025.

More from North Carolina

Kudos to KIPP North Carolina Public Charter Schools, which recently became the first charter in the state approved to offer its own educator preparation program. The program will begin in fall 2024 and offer prospective teachers immediate experience and training over 13 months to become licensed educators at the elementary or middle school level. During that time, candidates will also take classes required for certification. After the training, candidates will have two years to apply for their initial certification and pass their residency teaching license. The program will charge tuition but will offer candidates a zero-interest loan that is forgivable if participants fulfill a two-year commitment to teach at a KIPP NC school post-graduation.

Celebrating National Charter Schools Week

Last week was National Charter Schools Week. In celebration, Walton Family Foundation Senior Advisor Bruno Manno wrote this appreciation of the charter model, including notable successes over the years in terms of academic achievement, building community, and increasing social capital. “All this is worth recalling,” he concludes, “and recommitting ourselves to creating more high-quality independent public schools of choice that are accountable for results.”

Unique and diverse charter models

And here are two great illustrations of the various ways that charter schools can provide alternatives for a wide range of students. First up, Lumen High School in Spokane, Washington, which focuses on serving pregnant and parenting students. Chalkbeat recently featured a first-person account from junior Mahciah Campbell of the ways in which her school was able to help her through her pregnancy and her daughter’s infancy while remaining in school and preparing for a future career in nursing. Second, Hechinger took a detailed look at the Native American Community Academy (NACA) network, which includes 13 charter schools in five states. It is aimed at “bolstering [students’] Indigenous heritage with land-based lessons and language courses built into a college preparatory model.” NACA currently serves 500 students from 60 different tribes in grades K-12 and its leaders want to grow even more.

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. Just sayin’. 

1. OK. Time at last to talk about the elephant in the room. Has the work of Columbus City Schools’ Facilities Task Force been fatally compromised since last we discussed the situation? Let’s assess. A leaked document which detailed some ridiculous commentary and juvenile strategy suggestions from the perspective of the elected school board and aimed at “taking control” of the narrative around the task force’s work hit social media and then the mainstream media on Tuesday. The uproar was instantaneous. (ABC 6 News, Columbus, 5/21/24) A board meeting scheduled for that day went on as planned, including some public input on the proposals previously put forward by the task force… (Columbus Dispatch, 5/22/24) …but not before some chaotic and contradictory public statements from the elected board member at  the center of the memo mess and some of his colleagues. (10 TV News, Columbus, 5/22/24) That board member will likely not be in his seat for much longer, I reckon, one way or another. Which will bring a modicum of closure. (Columbus Dispatch, 5/23/24) But could this mess really be the death knell for the work? It is a sideshow to the task force’s actual work of course—their various recommendations for desperately-needed right-sizing of district facilities and the analysis and implementation of the best plan. But previously-scheduled public input sessions to discuss the proposals are currently on hold… (10 TV News, Columbus, 5/23/24) …the folks who had already called the work of the task force into question have more leverage than ever to stop the process cold until these other issues have been sorted out to their satisfaction… (Columbus Education Association press releases, 5/23/24) …and “getting to the bottom of this” is now the main focus of, well, everyone. (Columbus Dispatch, 5/23/24) Does it all end here with no further action on the serious decisions needing made? Does the district continue to limp into the future with no effort to decrease its footprint and increase the efficient use of its resources? I know what I think at this moment, but who knows what will happen next that could change my mind.
   
   

2. In other news, former state superintendent Susan Zelman opines on what’s needed to help teacher preparation programs equip our future educators to properly teach the science of reading. Nice. (Dayton Daily News, 5/21/24)
   
   

3. Dayton City Schools’ Dunbar High School was featured on NBC’s Today show earlier this week, a national exemplar for their 100 percent ban on student cellphone possession during school hours. Even though it’s been in place for less than a full school year, everyone interviewed is sure that it has made (in)calculable improvements in every aspect of the school. (Amusing to hear the teacher say her main complaint about phones in class was the constant sound of notification pings. You never hear that one in the list of technological horrors, do you?) I have many thoughts, as I’m sure you could have guessed, but I’ll spare you the bulk of it today, except to make sure to give Dunbar credit where they are owed: These Frugal McDougals don’t need $30,000 magnetic bags to run their regime, nor even $1,000 in wall-mounted phone pockets. No sir. $90 and an Amazon account will get you 500 plain manila envelopes and a pen that will do the job just fine. Providing, of course, that you have an army of highly-paid bag screeners, a captive student body, and endless search time on the front end, as well as the threat of suspension on the back end. But never mind all that: kudos indeed to the Dunbarians on their economical ingenuity. (Dayton Daily News, 5/23/24) Editors at Vindy.com are all in on cellphone bans, too…almost. “While a complete elimination of cellphones from the academic environment may be accepted by some, cellphones can also be seen as a learning tool to be used during certain classroom activities that would aid a student’s learning ability, especially in today’s society where a new app or piece of technology is developed every day.” Sorry, Dunbarians. It’s still zero tolerance for you guys. (Vindy.com, 5/24/24)
   
   

4. Finally released from the carceral cavalcade and back in the light of day, let’s look anew at Cristo Rey Catholic High School here in Columbus. We’ve talked about this awesome school/work model before but it’s worth reiterating again (especially after our foregoing district-based horror stories) as it is currently celebrating its 10 year anniversary. Cristo Rey looks like a great place for students learn and grow, provides numerous supports across the board, has a ridiculous track record of student success, welcomes all faiths and backgrounds, and there are seats available for low-income students right now. Run, don’t walk, parents. This is what many of you have been looking for. And they have been looking for you. Go get it. (Columbus Dispatch, 5/21/24)
   
   

5. Here are three stories for you to end our clips on an up-note for the week: St. Vincent-St. Mary High School senior Anne Rea gave the valedictory speech at the Akron school’s graduation ceremony this week. She was upbeat, positive, and forward-looking despite losing her family home to a devastating fire less than 24 hours earlier. (Akron Beacon Journal, 5/22/24) An anonymous donor contributed more than $3,300 to settle all outstanding lunch, library, and student fees at Saville Elementary in tiny Mad River Local Schools. (Dayton Daily News, 5/22/24) Remember back in March when the first of Intel’s “super load” equipment deliveries hit the road from southern Ohio headed for Columbus? The video of Portsmouth West Elementary students lined up and cheering as the giant truck rolled by their school that day reached Intel execs and they promised to host a STEM Day for those kiddos to show them what the work was all about. Well, that day came earlier this week, and it sounds like everyone had a nerdy blast. Awesome! (ABC 6 News, Columbus, 5/22/24)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Katharine Birbalsingh has many monikers: the founder and headmistress at Michaela Community School; chair of the Social Mobility Commission, an advisory body in England’s Department for Education; Commander of the Order of the British Empire; honorary fellow at New College, Oxford; Britain’s strictest headmistress; and of course, Miss Snuffy.

In 2010, she was tapped to give a speech at Britain’s Conservative Party conference, after which she was asked not to return to the school where she was employed. She eventually resigned and established her own school in 2014. A decade later, The Michaela Community School, a British free school comparable to an American charter school, which serves roughly 800 students ranging from eleven to eighteen, regularly boasts the highest growth scores of any K–12 educational institution in England.

Even with all those demands on her time, I had the opportunity to sit down with her recently for a conversation to figure out what exactly her school does to achieve such success.

I want to start at the beginning of your career with Michaela. You’ve resigned from your previous job. You’ve decided to found a school. Talk us through what that was like for you.

Well, in 2010 when we started, we had protestors outside and infiltrating our parent information events. They would shout to drown us out when we were trying to explain the new school to the potential parents who were interested. And it was really shocking, actually, because the parents were all Black moms from the inner city and the detractors were all White middle-class people, often from outside London, who had been bused in to destroy the hopes of these poor Black moms who were just looking for another option.

They would campaign outside with signs. They had picket lines with signs calling me names. We had to hire bouncers to protect us. When we finally opened, they stood outside and gave flyers to the children telling them their lives were in danger because health and safety standards had not been met in the building. So I went to the photocopier and copied the flyer 120 times and gave it to all the kids and then I said, “when you leave this evening, wave it in their faces and say, my headmistress has already given me a copy.”

That was the fun and games of 2014. We have been fighting with people ever since to stay alive.

Critics suggest that you’re imposing the strict discipline for which you have become known on students because they’re poor or Black or minorities, that teaching children to work hard and be nice is only teaching them to comply and be subservient. How do you respond?

Well, we are an inner-city school. Gangs are a problem. Alcoholism is a problem. Drugs are a problem. But you wouldn’t believe that if you came inside. The students are so well behaved, and they know so much—more than the children at the private schools.

Children like to be safe and looked after. When children feel safe, they’re more likely to push the boat out when it comes to their learning, like putting their hands up in lessons to trying out an interesting answer. If they feel that the bullies are in control, however, then the child will not expand their learning or take risks to try out new types of thinking.

Similarly, people don’t like the fact that our corridors are silent. They imagine that children normally skip through the corridors chatting about Aristotle. But I can tell you that, in the inner city, that is not what’s happening. Normally they’re pummeling each other, sending each other to hospital, screaming, shoving, and bullying. If children are safe in the corridor, they are much happier.

I think the people who make that criticism have never spent any time in the inner city or simply don’t know what it’s like to be in a school. If they were to spend any time there, then they would realize that what we do is what works.

Perhaps the polar opposite, at least rhetorically, to the discipline proponents is the “it’s all about relationships” crowd. Are relationships important?

Absolutely. It’s the number one thing we talk about at Michaela. When new staff come, we inundate them with training around relationships. If a child does not feel loved, and if the child does not love his teacher, he will not work for that teacher.

But we need to ask what enables a teacher to have strong relationships with their children. You need behavior systems that are applied equally and fairly to every child at all times. You will always have some teachers who are really great with kids, and they just have a way about them. And then there are other teachers who don’t have that skill. The consistency of the behavior systems enables all of your teachers to be able to build those relationships and to have an atmosphere of love.

It’s all well and good talking about relationships, but if you then deny schools consistent high-standard behavior systems, then you will never be able to connect with all of your children in a loving way.

Michaela is known for its discipline, but that’s not the only thing that sets it apart. What makes your instruction unique?

People think that in order for a child to be creative and think for himself, you must just let him go, that he’ll just figure it out and discover his love for French or science. That isn’t actually how children learn. They learn and get inspired when a passionate teacher gives them lots of knowledge, so our desks are in rows facing the teacher. The teacher is at the front of the classroom facing the children, leading the learning.

A more progressive classroom has the desks in groups where the children are looking at each other, not at the teacher, and it’s the children who are leading the learning. But when the teacher is leading the learning, they are able to teach the children so much because of course they know a lot more than the children. They have been doing this for many years, they have degrees, and the children are able to feel successful and happy.

Schools that spend their time with self-esteem lessons are wasting their time. All they need to do is teach the children properly. When children learn, it boosts their self-esteem. They feel really clever and successful. If you do it progressively, however, the child often thinks, “why am I so stupid?” And the ones who don’t have the same cultural capital coming from home sit in the classroom feeling very inadequate, eventually misbehave, get sent out of the lesson, and then that’s it for them. When they fail, we say it was because they were poor or Black. It is not because of those things. It was because we never taught them properly in the first place.

What does art look like at Michaela?

A progressive view of art instruction would be, “look at the fruit bowl and draw it.” Now, I remember being in art lessons at school where I would sit and think, “I don’t know how to draw a banana.” The fact is, I was never taught, for instance, that there are several different positions and places where you can hold a pencil, which allow a far lighter or darker shade on the paper. We start with those basics and build up from those basics so that the children actually learn how to draw.

It’s the same mentality that we have when teaching history. We will teach them the basics—some dates and general information. And over time, chronologically, we are building up their historical knowledge. That is what I think teaching should be. You break it down to its smallest component and then you build it back up again.

There seems to be this broad, progressive movement that’s just taking over education, be it instructionally progressive—let the kids do whatever they want—or very politically progressive—everything’s racist, we need to dismantle every system, deconstruct all of western society. Are we fighting a losing battle?

Well, you should never go down without a fight. I do think we are losing, but it doesn’t matter. You only have a hundred years if you’re lucky on this planet. You want to reach that age of 85 or 95 and look back on your life and think, I contributed. I made the world into a better place. That’s all you can do. It doesn’t matter if we lose. What’s important is that we contributed to the fight.

What’s next for Michaela?

Well, we have tried many times to expand. We tried to open a primary school. We were blocked. We tried to open a secondary school. That was stopped. We tried to set up a leadership program for other school leaders in the country, and that was blocked. So right now, we just want to survive.

I’m particularly concerned because the Labor Party will soon be coming into power. We were blocked at all those stages under a Conservative government, so you can imagine my worries with a Labor government. I’m hoping that they’ll just ignore us, given that we are very successful and we also hold values that tend to be the opposite to what they think. But you never know. Maybe they’ll come and see the school and be convinced and change some of their ideas. I do hope so.

Editor’s note: This was first published on the author’s Substack, “citizen stewart,” which covers race, education, and democracy.

Every year, without fail, someone sounds the alarm about the “resegregation of American public schools.” It’s a problem with deep roots and nasty downstream consequences for students in communities with less social capital.

Some of the discussion is grounded in solid, authoritative research. But then you get the terrifically ditzy takes, like a recent Vox article blaming charter schools—serving just 7 percent of U.S. students—for the complex systemic issue of racial segregation. That’s like blaming a storm shelter for the hurricane.

People who genuinely want to solve “the problem we all live with” often resort to shallow, careless analysis. Researchers agree that segregation has escalated to alarming levels over the past three decades. Despite the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, schools today are more racially and economically isolated than ever. However, simple explanations that indict charter schools as the culprit are unserious.

Let’s start with a little historical context

The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision marked a significant victory in the fight against racial segregation in public schools. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s unanimous ruling declared that state-sanctioned segregation violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision overturned the “separate but equal” doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and catalyzed the Civil Rights Movement. However, despite the Court’s clear mandate, there was considerable resistance to desegregation, and implementation was slow and fraught with challenges.

As time passed, the complexities of achieving integration became more evident. Dr. Kenneth Clark, whose research influenced the Brown decision, later acknowledged the underestimated resistance to integration. James Coleman’s studies in the late 1970s revealed mixed results regarding the effects of desegregation, with positive impacts in the South but more destructive effects in the North. These historical perspectives suggest that the integration imperative may not be the sole solution to educational inequality.

Shifting perspectives on integration

In 1969, most Black Americans supported integration across various aspects of life, including schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. However, over the decades, skepticism about integration has grown within the Black community. Contemporary Black thought increasingly questions whether integration is the best path to achieving educational and social equity. Black families challenge the sentiment that Black children need to attend school with white children to succeed. Many Black parents and educators now advocate for quality education in predominantly Black schools, emphasizing the importance of culturally affirming environments and community control over schooling.

Brown should have never suggested that Black schools with Black teachers were inherently inferior due to the absence of whiteness. It’s one thing to say that excluding Black people from attending integrated public schools is racist and wrong, but it’s another to say that only schools with whites can be successful. Many district and charter schools prove that wrong every day.

The current narrative around segregation is all wrong. It’s obsessed with shuffling students of color into predominantly white spaces instead of empowering marginalized communities. This viewpoint misses the mark on addressing the real roots of educational inequality and ignores the potential for building self-determination and choice within these communities. The idea that poor Black kids can’t succeed without white students around is not only flawed but downright harmful. It perpetuates the myth that Black excellence needs whiteness to thrive, undermining the value and potential of predominantly Black schools.

Positive all-Black spaces are important for the healing and development of African American students and adults. Look at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Black churches, and Black fraternities and sororities. These institutions show the immense power of culturally affirming environments. They provide role models, community support, and a sense of identity vital for Black children’s development and success. They also produce the lion’s share of our desperately needed doctors, lawyers, and teachers.

Creating empowering Black educational environments is an option we can’t overlook. The focus must shift towards improving school leadership, quality teaching, and culturally affirming classrooms. Every student deserves the chance to succeed; these environments can help make that happen.

Segregation is a problem with no easy answers

I concede that segregation in public schools is rising. There is a research basis for seeing that trend and worrying about the implications. And, yes, integration is a noble long-term goal. But what does that mean for the average Black and Latino student currently in predominantly nonwhite schools, scraping by with less compared to their peers in whiter schools? What do we do for them now?

The 2020 census tells us the U.S. is more diverse and urbanized than ever, but our schools do not reflect that reality. The chance that two random people are from different racial or ethnic backgrounds has hit 61.1 percent, but you wouldn’t know it walking through most public schools. The urban-rural divide is growing, and the non-Hispanic white population is on the decline, complicating any real push for educational equity.

What’s the urgent solution for students stuck in schools with low expectations, inadequate teaching, sub-prime curricula, ineffective leadership, and a low-key defeatist attitude that swaps academic achievement for the morphine of mediocrity? I mean the schools with fewer resources, teacher shortages, higher student-to-counselor ratios, less access to Algebra, fewer AP class options, and teacher strikes every other year that steal learning time from academically behind students?

Can we fix the ill effects of racist urban planning and social engineering at the root of segregation?

Can we change the hearts and minds of middle-class homebuyers who see life as a foot race between their kids and ours?

Is there a massive change in political will to restructure society so that children of different backgrounds are evenly distributed among schools?

I’m skeptical.

Charter schools: Controversial but effective

Love or hate them, charter schools have proven to be a lifeline for many Black and Latino kids. Nestled in marginalized communities, these schools often provide culturally affirming, safe, and supportive environments where students can thrive. Their success flies in the face of the idea that integration is the only path to educational equity. Sadly, charter schools have to constantly battle ideological wars and accusations from opponents and journalists about perpetuating segregation (and worse).

The Brookings Institute report bluntly states, “High-poverty, high-minority [charter] schools produce achievement gains substantially greater than traditional public schools in the same areas.” This isn’t just a fluke; it highlights the crucial role of school quality over racial or economic makeup. Charter schools offer a tangible solution for improving educational outcomes long before the pipe dream of perfect integration becomes reality.

Taking the charter school option away from families who choose them would barely nudge segregation figures—by a measly 5 percent—but it would rip away a world of opportunity for their students.

Blaming charter schools, school choice, and civil rights groups for stepping back from failed desegregation efforts is not just a misdiagnosis; it’s a dead end. It does nothing for a public school system that’s increasingly nonwhite and poorer.

Empirical evidence on schools and segregation

A comprehensive study looking at school enrollment by race from 1998 to 2015 found that more kids going to charter schools leads to a slight bump in segregation among Black and Hispanic students within districts.

Specifically, a 1 percentage point increase in charter school enrollment raises segregation by 0.11 percentage points.

Statistically significant? Yes. Game-changing? Not really.

The study found some interesting variations based on geography. Charter schools slightly increase segregation in towns or counties, but the effect is negligible in metropolitan areas. This means charter schools might bump segregation within districts but help decrease it between districts in the same metro area.

The debate over charter schools and segregation should weigh these potential drawbacks against their successes in serving vulnerable populations.

As America gets more diverse and urbanized, achieving true educational equity remains a beguiling riddle. Integration is a noble goal, but we also need to empower marginalized communities and ensure quality education where students are.

We must champion self-determination and community empowerment to create educational environments that meet the needs of all students, regardless of race or background.