I WAS surprised when I picked up the Nov. 9 Globe and saw "High-flying pilot schools" on the front page, above the fold. This story belongs in the "Duh!" section.
How can one take the MCAS scores and habits of students attending public schools that are allowed to "as a whole, enroll fewer struggling students"; "enroll fewer students with severe special needs and students with limited English skills"; and "have set a variety of admissions criteria, including demanding essays, teacher recommendations, interviews, and even transcripts, to ensure that students are the right fit for the schools," and compare them with the scores of regular schools that "are assigned students through a computerized choice lottery"? These pilot schools appear to be nothing more than publicly funded private schools.
I would like to see a comparison of students from the regular public, charter, and pilot schools who fit into the same demographic groups. Or, assign students to charter and pilot schools using the same computerized choice lottery as for regular schools, and then compare performance. But please stop using MCAS scores to compare school districts until you find a way to compare apples to apples.
PAUL ELLIS
Medford
TRACY JAN describes how Boston's pilot schools are doing statistically better than Boston's regular public schools. It should be noted that pilot schools were opened as laboratories of innovation, where unconventional curricula and pedagogy could be developed and shared with other Boston Public Schools.
I have been a Boston Public School teacher for eight years, and I have never once learned of any innovations that originated from this experiment. Given that I have to take it upon myself to learn about these so-called innovations, I have come to the following conclusions: The formula for success is to open a school, create admissions policies that promote self-selection, then find a well-financed partner such as the Boston Foundation to help disseminate distorted educational data.
Boston's pilot schools are doing a wonderful job, but they are models that rely on admissions policies that cannot be duplicated systemwide. Until all stakeholders can be honest and objective about what is going on, so-called education reform will be a fantasy and never a reality.
JOHN ABBOTT
Brookline
The writer is a special-education teacher.
