NYT editorial got it wrong on small schools
The Times lauds the reported success of NY small schools as shown in a recent MDRC study. Of course the benefits of small schools and smaller learning communities is nothing new and has been documented in study after study (including my own) for many years. But the editorial, as expected, puts its own spin on the research and credits that success to Bloomberg's school closing policies and top-down reform strategy.
Of course there is some overlap between charter schools and small schools, a point not taken into account in the recent study, which was paid for by the Gates Foundation (isn't everything these days?).Charters on the whole, are small and benefit from the positives that small size brings, ie. stronger relationships between teachers and students and opt-in by parents and students. But those benefits, when gained Bloomberg-style, do so at the
The study validates the small school policies of the Bloomberg administration, which has shut down 20 large, failing high schools and replaced them with more than 200 small schools, about half of which were the focus of this study.Nothing could be further from the truth. The Times confuses authentic small schools with Bloomberg/Klein's chains of privately-managed charter schools which were imposed on protesting communities and implanted in neighborhood school facilities. Study after study has found those charters to be no better and often worse than the closed neighborhood schools they replaced.
Of course there is some overlap between charter schools and small schools, a point not taken into account in the recent study, which was paid for by the Gates Foundation (isn't everything these days?).Charters on the whole, are small and benefit from the positives that small size brings, ie. stronger relationships between teachers and students and opt-in by parents and students. But those benefits, when gained Bloomberg-style, do so at the