Charter Schools Might Not Be Better

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Frederick, I don't know what public schools you're talking about, because all of the public schools I'm aware of and the one where I work ENCOURAGE parents to get involved. In fact, when students are having trouble, it's often because the parents haven't been involved enough. We are always inviting parents to volunteer to help out in the schools, and most teachers are very communicative with parents about what is going on in the classroom with their children.In the beginning of the year at Back to School Night, parents are invited to meet the child's teacher, learn about the curriculum and what the children do in class, and are asked to get involved with volunteering, etc. Some parents choose not to come and see what their children are learning. There are also 2 or more scheduled conferences during the year where teachers discuss the students' achievement--some parents balk at having to come in for 20 minutes to discuss their children's education. I have experienced the school environment as both a teacher and colleague of other teachers and also as a parent - my son is in 2nd grade. If there is an issue with something with my son (or on the other hand, if he's doing well with something and needs a challenge), the other teachers make me aware of it so that I can support what they're doing. On the other hand, there are students who have poor organizational skills, are always forgetting to bring things in, do not get homework done, do not get enough sleep, etc. who are having trouble in school... in some cases, the bookbag with papers giving info about what they're learning, something that's happening at school, homework or a project that they should be working on at home... well it gets sent back to school several days in a row with no evidence that the parent has even looked inside. Parents need to give their children support and make sure they are aware of what the children are learning and encourage them to do their work; otherwise, these children will not have success. When a child is having trouble, a lot goes into helping him/her - he/she is evaluated by a team (teacher, guidance counselor, special needs teachers, child study team, etc.) to find a plan that will work best for the child, give him/her extra support from basic skills teachers or resource room, extra instruction through extended day (after school) or one-on-one tutoring, etc. Now, none of that can be done w/o additional funds -- if a child needs extra help because he/she is behind, they may need support from additional teachers and that means hiring more staff. Some districts cannot afford to hire enough staff to give the children the support they need, and in fact class sizes have grown to the point where it's difficult to meet the needs of kids who normally would do ok. School board meetings are open to the public, and any member of the public who has something to say can do so. If you have a problem with your district's public school, go to a board mtg. and say so.

Christine of NJ 7:39AM October 02, 2010

Oh! This is awesome! Thank you for countering severalsome
misconceptions I have read about this as of late.

this of AL 5:32PM March 11, 2010

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.

Fredrick Stone of NC 10:54AM June 24, 2009

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.

Coffee Talk of IL 1:33PM June 23, 2009

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.

R Tate of MO 1:27PM June 23, 2009

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.

Kent Strong of NY 11:16PM June 21, 2009

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.

Phoenixflash of MI 1:41PM June 20, 2009

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

Muser of NM 12:39PM June 20, 2009

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.

Dissappointed Reader of CA 1:54PM June 19, 2009

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.

Ron W. Smith of UT 3:37PM June 18, 2009