Charter Schools Might Not Be Better
Reader Comments
To Muser of NM
While I agree with much of what you said I take exception to number three, "no elected school board." Neither did you provide another way for parents' input to be considered. I hope you do not feel that way but this sounds a little elitist. You seem to be saying we don't need the parents and especially their ideas. I, for one, am tired of the "provide the money and the children and keep out" attitude that is growing in public education. They are, after all, our children. Please don't tell me the experts no best. I 57 years old, I seen what "experts" can do. Listen to ideas but never trust experts blindly.
On the article itself, they seemed to be measuring improvement but I am not sure what they were using as a baseline. I would like to know what the average scores were and how that compared to the public schools. That says more about the ultimate result. We learned long ago to question all studies. There are often assumptions in the studies that are incorrect and therefore bring the conclusions into question.
PleaseDon't Privatize our Schools
Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't Unfortunately, because of powerful state charter organizations and the undying support from Arne Duncan who launched the infamous Renaissance 2010 with the "Hang em' All You Get the Guilty" turnaraound school policy, the whole story is not being presented. First, there are many state and national reports that show test scores are no better in charters than in regular schools. Even the U.S. Department of Education has such a report on their website. Second, using test data is a faulty anyway. Charter organizations staunchly oppose attendance boundaries (which presents numerous safety issues) because they want the kids from higher income neighborhoods with better elementary resources to come into low-income neighborhoods and raise the test scores for those charter schools. This gives the false impression that the charters are doing better than their neighborhood counterparts. A school's progress under federal guidelines is usually measured by attendance and graduation rates along with test scores and other measures that account for numerous variables. But charters seem to be only interested in looking at test scores. If you look at qualitative studies, you find a lot of discontent with charters among parents, students, and teachers, particularly special needs and ESL students. Given the current economy, is it really a good idea to rely on the private sector to educate our children? Shouldn't the needs of the community-at-large be addressed over the needs of the corporations that fund charters? Shouldn't charters have to prove their success before replicating rather than the current system of unchecked proliferation? Isn't it a huge red flag that this whole "reform" movement was born out of George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind? Make no mistake, the privatization of our public schools is about money NOT about education. It saves school districts and state education boards lots of money. And with the very top-down authoritarian approach of denying states educational funding if they do not raise the cap on charters, state educational boards who actually want to proceed with caution to ensure charters are doing what they are supposed to be doing are being bullied by Arne Duncan. Essentially more charters equals more money. Disgusting. So much for the community-based approach we heard so much about during the election. Just like with parking meters, airports, and in some places even rainwater, privatization benefits a few while hurting many more. Privatization schemes are short-term budget solutions with long-term societal consequences. Let's really think this through here because it is a lot harder to de-privatize (you'll get called a socialist) than to simply sell off everything that was paid for by tax dollars. If Ren 10 goes national, we will undoubtedly pay a high societal cost by infiltrating our schools with uncertified and underpaid teachers.
Re: Muser of NM
There are plenty of schools just like you describe. They are called private or independent schools. High quality teaching, competent but limited administration, small class sizes and caring students and faculty.
Flawed Logic
I have serious problems with the basic structure of this study. As I read it, the only students being evaluated in the study are students who transfered to charter schools. A better approach would be to start with students in kindergarten and follow them over time. I think you introduce all kinds of bias by only looking at students who transfered into charter schools.
Charter Schools Are A Scam
Charter schools are just another scam with the purpose of lowering teacher pay. At best, they offer the same progress as a traditional public school - yet they drain resources. Get real reform: national standards, national exit tests with no student earning a diploma unless they PASS! Teacher pay based on teacher's contributions. Get sports OUT of schools and into community clubs where they belong.
I'd like to see schools
1) That are individually very small
2) That have very small class sizes
3) That have no elected school board
4) That have no competitive sports programs
5) That have students walking fast in pairs around a walking track as "P.E" twice a day
5) That use school uniforms for students
and a very professional dress code for staff
6) That permit and encourage gum chewing (because of the mental stimulation) but outlaw all cell phones or text devices
7) That are run by a principal who is merely one of the teachers elected to that position by the other teachers---one year at a time
8) That use curriculum materials selected and elected by the teachers in a vote
Any of you "reformers" out there think you can get this tried a few places? Betcha you'd love the results. Betcha there are armies of over-trained "administrator" types that would fight you to the death over this, too. Why do we tolerate them?
Try THAT
Charter School Issues
It takes time to establish standards, train teachers in appropriate expectations, and put together a rigorous curriculum. Expecting young/inexperienced teachers to implement a program of the level needed to raise achievement of "at risk" children is unrealistic. Once these young professionals get experience, they look to the established public schools for a jump in pay and more security. Charter schools, in many cases, serve as a training ground for young educators who can't get into the established school systems right out of college. Politicians think that educating America's most needy children can be done on the cheap and they are doing a great disservice to these children and their families. An excellent educator deserves to be paid appropriately and will be by a school whose board and administration realize that for students to learn they need the best possible instruction and that comes from quality teaching.
While charter schools may create a better climate and culture for educating "at risk" children, climate and culture are only one factor in the equation. When a student is failing in the public school, they can go to a charter school. Then, when the same student fails in the charter school, he or she is sent back to the public school further behind than when the child left the public school in the first place. The issue is a well designed curriculum that is rigorous and pushes the students forward with high expectations, provides focused interventions when a child gets behind, and lays the groundwork for parent support at home to put the focus on preparing the child for the challenges of 21st century work place, not the factory mentality of the early 20th century.
Charter schools are a knee jerk reaction to a complicated problem that can't be solved on a blog page. Everyone involved needs to quit blaming everyone else and put the children first and practice tough love (if needed) to make sure our children acquire the skills necessary to live out their dreams in this global market place.
Newsweek Should Be More Savy About Methodology Than This
I am disappointed that Newsweek would write such a strongly negative piece, based on methodologically inferior research--and out of Stanford no less!
This study attempts to make national conclusions, based on standardized scale score gains across states that use different tests.
They control for some factors, except for the most important--choice.
Like SO many research efforts on the quality of charters, they lump all charters together. They do not consider the differences in the populations targeted or design differences form the "neighborhood" school they are supposedly "matching" kids to. Just because a charter is down the street from a traditional public school does not mean it is targeting kids from that school.
While I do not disagree with the message sent in the original paper--namely that there needs to be more emphasis on quality authorizing. I wholeheartedly disagree with Newsweek's stance that MOST charter schools are failing. The fact that half of charters are producing "gains" that are indistinguishable from traditional public schools should not be seen as failure, necessarily. It depends on how well the schools they are being compared to are doing. If they are doing no better than a low performing school, that isn't much of an accomplishment. However, if they are doing no better that a well performing school, that is not so bad. This research did not address the performance level of the schools charters were being compared to.They, like charters, are likely a mixed bag as well.
Like other commenters have noted. The only way we are ever going to know how well charters doing compared to traditional public schools is to randomly assign kids to schools. Given that our kids are not lab rats, that is not likely to occur. Intent to treat models (something like the Hoxby research) are the next best thing.
My main point, however, is that Newsweek grossly overstated the negative side of the findings in the CREDO report, and did so based on inferior research methodology.
I for one, am not impressed.
Charter Schools aren't the answer--not alopne, that is.
I'm always interested in innovation in education, and charter schools have been sold conceptually on their promise for good changes, good outcomes, alternative possibilities. When we see that any charter school is doing well or poorly, we all learn. Then we're able to act accordingly as further steps are planned.
All of that is fine. However, the real problems in education continue--teaching loads, class sizes, parental involvement and influence, excessive administrative layering, and the reimbursement of teachers. Correct each of these and, presto, we're talking success instead of problems.
I'm personally not averse to just pouring money into teacher salaries and letting teachers handle their schools top to bottom. The catch, and my demand, is educational success in return. We give you the money, teachers, you build the enterprise; in return, you give us guaranteed educational outcomes.
Pipe dream? Yes, but for one reason alone: where's all the money to come from? Answer: those who encourage birth rates that are unsustainable financially. Let them chip in with real gusto since they're contributors to the problem. Further answer: putting our money where our mouths are. We claim we want better--educational excellence is the phrase--so let's raise taxes as much as necessary.
Charter schools, in other words, are not enough. They're reinvention of the wheel and calling attention to the fancy new hubcaps. Pouring money on the problem the way I've suggested is a brand new, never tried before approach to the problems in education. Pay big, expect big.
Pipe dream? The ball's in your court.
Charter Schools Are Not All the Same
When these reports come out I doubt people take into consideration the goal of different charter schools and what they teach. It is true some charter schools do not offer classes or rigor to students that traditional public schools might. Some charter schools I've seen only offer up to pre-calculus for math, no AP classes, maybe a foreign language and if so only for two years. Some charter schools also act as alternative schools that enroll kids that had behavioral problems in traditional public schools and are far behind grade level so of course those schools will not have soaring test scores. We cannot equate these charters to those such as the KIPP schools and East Palo Alto Charter School that have clear goals to send all of its students to college. Charter schools vary in their missions and that should be taken into consideration. We also need to stop judging schools solely on test scores. Our students have plenty of talents that can be used to make them productive citizens that are not measured by test scores.
