On June 18, the mayor of Portland came out swinging against the Baxter Academy for Technology and Science, one of the first schools eligible to receive a charter from the state.
Like John Henry, Mayor Michael Brennan’s intentions are good, but, ultimately, standing in the way of the march of science is an enterprise doomed to fail.
The claim that Baxter will hurt public schools is bunk. Whatever one thinks of religious schools or charter schools in general, the promotion of math and science is nonpartisan and should not become a casualty of ideology ― unless you support charter schools for ideological reasons, in which case, right on.
Other than the one-time transition costs of moving students to a new place of instruction, how can it hurt the city to shift students to Baxter from the ordinary public schools? Presumably the school district gets enough money to teach the students it’s actually teaching. If it’s getting more, then an accountant needs to be hired ― or fired.
I concede I could be missing something here. Like many Americans, I’m not good with numbers: In the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment, America ranked 31st in math out of 65 countries or country-size entities.
Not only is there is a great need to increase the numbers of children going into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields ― over 55 percent of all Americans who received a math Ph.D. in 2008 went to foreign nationals ― there is also a need to support children with special talents in math and science for the sake of scientific progress itself. The Baxter Academy for Technology and Science will help ensure that.
Finally, Mayor Brennan charged that Baxter was doing nothing new. As a member of Baxter’s advisory board, I can categorically refute that: Except for Superintendent Ronald Ross’s districts in New York State, I do not know of any school in the country as willing to take on research mathematicians, including the Maine School of Science and Mathematics.
In February 2010, I spoke in Limestone on the topic, “How to Fall in Love with Mathematics.” A math teacher at the school, who has since been promoted, wrote to me afterwards: “Thanks for the talk when you came up to MSSM. You wouldn’t believe it but I had a couple of students come in asking for open problems and one of them was a student who I didn’t think was that into math.” Yet there was no follow-up. Besides, Limestone is too far away to help students in most of Maine.
Similarly, my offer to help the new STEM school in Bangor fell on deaf ears.
Mayor Brennan and Baxter should come together to apply for grants that will help all the children of Portland: A director of advanced mathematics at Baxter could also teach children gratis at Portland’s other public schools. I am currently a math consultant for the Greenburgh Central 7 School District in Hartsdale, N.Y., but children from neighboring schools are welcome to attend my talks.
Together, Brennan and Baxter could offset the $800,000 shortfall the mayor and others predict for Portland’s schools should Baxter enroll 100 students by applying for grants from Raytheon, whose CEO gave $850,000 to Tuskegee University to support African-Americans in science. (Of course, it might help if there were some actual African-Americans involved.)
The Department of Homeland Security also has STEM initiatives. In 2005, the New York State Board of Regents considered my initiative to create a Homeland Security program at a school. In 2007, a school district in Maryland successfully obtained funding from various homeland-security-related entities.
When I was a student, all the superstars in math competitions seemed to come from specialized schools such as the Bronx School of Science. All the math superstars when I was an undergraduate at Harvard University seemed to have this advantage as well. As a defender of unions and public schools, I sympathize with the mayor’s position in general, but the political opposition to charter schools should not get in the way of advancing science and technology in the United States.
The Baxter Academy for Technology and Science could be Mayor Brennan’s greatest legacy ― and Maine’s next bright star.
Dr. Jonathan David Farley is a mathematics consultant and an associate professor of computing and information science and mathematics and statistics at the University of Maine.
Dear Dr. Farley,
the sarcasm of your statement
“I concede I could be missing something here. Like many Americans, I’m not
good with numbers:” is actually quite ironically humorous considering your
profession. Yes professor you are missing something. You state,
“Other than the one-time transition costs of moving students to a new
place of instruction, how can it hurt the city to shift students to Baxter from
the ordinary public schools? Presumably the school district gets enough money
to teach the students it’s actually teaching. If it’s getting more, then an accountant
needs to be hired ― or fired.”
This demonstrates a clear
misunderstanding of both the nature of Charter Schools and of school funding in
Maine.
Let me attempt to clarify. First of all there would be no “one time
transition costs of moving students to a new place of instruction”.
This statement would make some sense if the new charter school belonged to the
Portland School Department and the students remained enrolled with Portland
School Department simply at another location. However even if this were
the case it would still be inaccurate since there would be the new costs of
operating the “new place of instruction” while still paying the cost
of operating the existing places of instruction. However, in fact the
statement has no relation to reality at all since the students would not remain
as students enrolled with Portland School Department. Since they would no
longer be the students of the Portland School Department there would be no such
moving costs.
Instead what
actually does occur is quite different than what you describe. As
specified in L.D. 1553.
“2. Revenue provisions. All state and local operating funds
follow each student to the public charter school attended by the student,
except that the school administrative unit of the student’s residence may
retain up to 1% of the per-pupil allocation described in this subsection to
cover associated administrative costs.”
Therefore all state and local operating funds related to each student would
leave the Portland School Department and be transferred to the new “Public Charter
School” , which of
course is neither owned nor operated by the public but rather only funded by
the public. According to the Maine Department of Education Portland’s
secondary per pupil operating costs were in excess of $12,000. Therefore for each student electing transfer
of enrollment from the Portland public school to
the Charter School $12,000 of revenues will be transferred
annually throughout those students’ years of enrollment. As an Associate Professor at UM I would
presume that you could see that the departure of a student from one of your
classes would not in fact appreciably affect the cost of delivering that
class. For example you would not expect
your salary to be prorated downward due to having one less student
enrolled. Nor would the costs of heating
and lighting the classroom be reduced. Of
course if the enrollment were to decline sufficiently then your class could be
cancelled and your personnel costs saved.
The fixed costs of facility operation and organizational overhead,
student transportation, etc. of course would not be appreciably altered. Therefore while there could be marginal cost
reductions made possible by the transfer of students from the Public Schools to
the Charter School the departure of per pupil revenues would result in the need
to either increase public revenues to cover the resultant shortfall or
alternatively to reduce expenditures made for the education of the remaining
students. Unless operational
efficiencies could be identified in practice this would mean reducing
educational programs and or services to the remaining students.
The second
half of your statement “Presumably the school district gets enough money to
teach the students it’s actually teaching. If it’s getting more, then an
accountant needs to be hired ― or fired”, is even more nonsensical than the
first. It is difficult to comprehend
exactly what your point is. Even if your presumption that the current funding
to the school district is adequate your subsequent non sequitur regarding
accountants is interestingly non coherent for a mathematician.
Moving
on I certainly do not disagree with your statement that there is a need to
increase young people pursuing STEM careers but your fact claim in support of
this assertion is inherently self defeating. You state that “over 55
percent of all Americans who received a math Ph.D. in 2008 went to foreign
nationals”. In fact by definition 0
percent of the Americans who received math Ph.Ds in 2008 were foreign
nationals. I presume what you meant to state was that
over 55 percent of math Ph.Ds issued by U.S. Universities were awarded to foreign
nationals. One hopes that this was a grammatical
rather than a cognitive error on your part.
You go on to discuss possible opportunities
for joint grant seeking on the part of the mayor and the proposed Baxter
Charter School, suggesting this could offset the revenue transfer from Portland
Public Schools to the new Charter School.
Of course this is absurd. Let us presume for a moment that such grants
were in fact available and attainable.
Even in such a case the grant funds would accrue to the Charter school
not the Portland Public Schools. Nor
would the receipt of grant funds do anything to change the legal requirement
that theper pupil operating revenue be transferred from the Public Schools to
the Charter School.
Further on
you make the statement “Besides, Limestone is too far away to help students in
most of Maine.” I am confident that the folks at MSSM would
take exception to that statement and would remind you that due to the
availability of student residences they in fact do serve students from all over
the state of Maine. The Baxter Academy
website indicates that it will be a non residential school. As a result The Baxter Academy would in fact
be less accessible to students outside its immediate area than MSSM not more
accessible.
I could go on but in closing let me say I
am in complete agreement with you that political ideology should not get in the
way of advancing science and technology in the United States. However, when a member of the a charter
school advisory board posts a letter to the editor filled with such numerous
misrepresentations, inaccuracies and plain untruths as this one, I can only
conclude that your political ideology or perhaps even self interest is the
driving force behind your advocacy rather than an impartial assessment of
whether this charter school proposal is actually the most effective way of
advancing STEM education in Maine.
The Baxter Academy for Technology and Science doesn’t seem like a bad idea. It seems like Portland is big enough to accommodate a school specializing in those subjects. I’m not from Portland and I had no idea that in addition to Portland High, Cheverus, and Deering, it also has Casco Bay High School for Expeditionary Learning. Math is looked on as a distasteful graduation requirement and given no particular consideration at least until the SAT results come in. A school emphasizing math would be a great idea.
“Not only is there is a great need to increase the numbers of children going into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields ― over 55 percent of all Americans who received a math Ph.D. in 2008 went to foreign nationals ― there is also a need to support children with special talents in math and science for the sake of scientific progress itself”
Maybe Dr. Farley would have done well to avail himself of the English courses a traditional high school would offer.
“Like many Americans, I’m not good with numbers”
And yet the college hired you as an associate professor of computing and information science and mathematics and statistics at the University of Maine.
Way to go UofM!