Posted on 08/20/2004 12:22:56 AM PDT by Stoat
Mr.Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Education Research Office.
Buried in a new report by the U.S. Department of Education is a comparison claiming to show that charter schools — independently run public schools free from many restrictions — have lower average test scores than regular public schools. A front page New York Times story, put together with the help of America’s second-largest teachers union, recently trumpeted this previously obscure statistic.
But the original report buried the finding for a very good reason. Such a broad comparison between charter schools and regular public schools is sheer nonsense. Unlike regular public schools, many charter schools are specifically designed to serve students with low test scores. Denouncing charter schools for having lower-than-average test scores is like denouncing drug rehab clinics for having more drug users than regular hospitals. A recent Manhattan Institute study found that a large number of charter schools are specifically targeted to educate particular underperforming populations.Across the nation there are charter schools with the stated purpose of educating groups like pregnant teens, high school dropouts, delinquent youth, or even the broadly defined group of at-risk children. About 13% of New York’s charter schools are targeted to such underperforming populations. So are about 41% of charter schools in Texas and 67% of charter schools in Illinois.
It should come as no surprise that charter schools promoting themselves as special alternatives for low-performing students would have below-average test scores. Such schools simply have no equivalent among regular public schools.
Not that a lack of a valid comparison stopped the American Federation of Teachers, which the Times credits for bringing the Education Department’s charter school comparison to light. The union valiantly tries to get around the pesky problem that many charter schools are specially targeted toward
the most difficult students by making comparisons based on race, income, and geography. When results are broken out by these factors, they point out, regular public schools consistently outperform charter schools.
This is a lot like saying you can draw a valid comparison between apples and oranges by comparing apple seeds and orange seeds. Focusing on superficial similarities doesn’t overcome the fundamental differences. Because so many charter schools are specifically targeted to struggling students, a large percentage of their minority and poor students face obstacles greater than students of similar demographics in regular public schools. There’s just no comparison.
An apples-to-apples comparison between charter schools and regular public schools yields far different results. The Manhattan Institute’s analysis compared test-score gains in charter schools serving the general student population to those of their nearest regular public schools. When we make this fairer comparison, charter schools outperform regular public schools by 3 percentile points in math and 2 percentile points in reading for students at the 50th percentile over a one-year period. Charter schools might not be trouncing regular public schools, as some overzealous advocates claim, but when we make fair comparisons charter schools are significantly better.
Many charter schools serve especially disadvantaged populations because it is exactly those students whom education reforms are intended to benefit. We could increase charter school test scores by opening more charter schools that targeted suburban white students instead of at-risk urban youth, but that’s not the point of having charter schools. Unfairly comparing charter schools to regular public schools punishes them for reaching out to the disadvantaged students that the regular public schools have most often failed.
It's no surprise that the NYT and the teacher's unions worked together in order to put a negative spin on charter schools. They would be happiest if everyone put all of their faith in the NYT and in Government schools with no alternatives. The fact that they went out of their way to spin their story shows how worried they are....once people see that the light of the sun can indeed shine upon them, you can never have them believe that darkness is the most that they can hope for anymore.
meaningless title really.
I suppose one could say that ANY school is a "government school" when you consider that all accredited schools have to be allowed to operate by dictate of the government.
The point that I was making, which I had thought was clear enough, is that charter schools although regulated and licensed by the government are a breed apart from the massive, generic and failing institutions that we know as public schools and are there to serve specific needs and special populations. As such, they are dramatically different from a standard public "government" school.
Government should not fund or regulate schools. Its the only way it will work, if improving the education is the goal.
On that point we can agree, although since that isn't possible at the moment with the laws that we live under, I welcome charter schools as a step in the right direction, even if they aren't perfect in every sense.
When a charter is granted, it becomes a contract, of sorts, between the founders of the charter school and the Board, allowing the founders broad latitude in running the school. The charter school process I was involved in a few years ago was called a "conversion charter." This is an existing public school that converts to a charter school, as compared to a new school that begins operations under its charter. Our school was already a very high-performing school, and our goal was to break loose from some of the stifling State regulations and innovate the curriculum.
Although a conversion charter school is supposed to be "fiscally neutral" to the School District, the former Superintendent squashed our charter attempt by threatening (illegally) all sorts funding sources. He won the battle, but in the long run, that's why he is the "former" superintendent now.
Congratulations and thanks to you for fighting the good fight. You've played a role in improving education for children everywhere.
It's been my observation that it isn't the schools that are failing it's the community. You can see this throughout America. It is a pretty good bet that if a particular school is shaky so is the local community.
The masssive and generic public school that my son goes to would and does rival any school (public or private) in the quality of education given. Why? Because the community cares, the teachers realize and appreciate this and students know what is expected of them.
Naturally I'm delighted that your neighborhood is apparently not in need of a charter school, but many communities are and as long as the stranglehold of the teachers' unions prevent and impede competition, the communities that need them will never get them. The teachers' unions are much like any other in that they exist to protect their membership....in this case, any deviation from the status quo is viewed as a threat and will be crushed whenever possible.
For decades, the test scores of children in the traditional government schools have been failing, both when compared against historical record and also when compared against similar data in other countries. The only solution that the teachers' unions have allowed until recently is in pleading for more money. In several test cities, the scores have actually gone down after huge influxes of money for additional teachers and revamped infrastructure. East St. Louis is a perfect example.
Charter schools and other solutions provide an option for parents to make use of if they wish to break out of what they perceive as a failing system, which in many communities it is. With time, the teachers' unions may decide that healthy competition brings out the best in schools, just as it does in students.
...front of a donkey... eshh.
It's been my observation that it isn't the schools that are failing it's the community. You can see this throughout America. It is a pretty good bet that if a particular school is shaky so is the local community.
The masssive and generic public school that my son goes to would and does rival any school (public or private) in the quality of education given. Why? Because the community cares, the teachers realize and appreciate this and students know what is expected of them.
Amen to this. And it doesn't take any tax dollars or government regulations to help out either, just a little time.
In my state, the charter schools for the "regular" students don't perform any better than the public schools (who actually do pretty good) nor do they have any real innovative ideas. The reading and math approaches they use are ones either used by public schools or discarded long ago by private and public schools. They are, however, a tool of the education liberals in my state with their political agenda against public education. I do strongly support some of the career-oriented charter schools for those of high-school age, though.
Since vouchers are another tool of the above-mentioned liberals, I do not support them. On a private basis, though, they are probably okay.
I'm probably a week late in responding - but vouchers will undermine our public schools but "no child left behind" works well and if "they" don't like it them they can fare for themselves
Add a few commas in there:).
I'm not sure if you're saying if no child left behind is good or bad. No Child Left Behind has a few good points, but has many other points that need addressing before it is a good law. It does seem like just another attempt by big government to control local schools ( many of the conservative politicians in my state don't like it). I could elaborate and write a novel on some of the aspects of it, but basically it does set up many schools to fail, without addressing the real issues. I prefer to call it No Child's behind left. My state almost pulled out of it, but couldn't do without the federal funds in the lowest funded state in the nation.
And yes, vouchers do undermine public schools too.
I'm a month+ late in response but... vouchers will undermine our schools but will they undermine it as badly as the costs of "alternative methods"? My suspicion is that it would be cheaper to let the people that want an alternative to get a refund on their taxes than to try and have our public schools pay for the "Great Experiment".?
Certainly NCLB is short of an absolute answer but as Mr. Bush stated in the debate "45%" more is a noble effort. How much does it require to cover everyone? I don't think I want to pay for that.
I'm a month+ late in response but... vouchers will undermine our schools but will they undermine it as badly as the costs of "alternative methods"? My suspicion is that it would be cheaper to let the people that want an alternative to get a refund on their taxes than to try and have our public schools pay for the "Great Experiment".?
Certainly NCLB is short of an absolute answer but as Mr. Bush stated in the debate "45%" more is a noble effort. How much does it require to cover everyone? I don't think I want to pay for that.
First on the second statement. While I thnk NCLB's aims are noble, the methodology is lacking. AND it is a big government, big expenditure that I don't think I want to pay either so I agree with you there. I could comment a LOT on it, but won't.
I would agree that in some states there probably is TOO much spent on some public schools. I do think that there are some areas that don't need so much. I try to use low-cost solutions in my own classroom.
Remember, though, I live in a state that has the LOWEST spending for education in the nation. We have always been underfunded, but have quietly accepted that. We've done a pretty good job for what we have. Now the powers that be want to create loads of charter schools and are willing to spend almost an unlimited amount of money to further their political agenda with not much accountability. The charter schools get 4 to 5 times per student in terms of dollars than the public schools get (for the first three years).
Some of the charter schools in my state also benefit some of the legislature's companies and cronies. That is just plain unethical to me. Other alternatives again take money directly out of the system, some to benefit others that already have lots of choices. Again, I'll be brief on this point. Some people may get a refund on some taxes, but people like me without kids now have to pay for Billy in the public school and Jill whose parents got a tax refund. I don't mind vouchers IF they don't take any money away from public education OR if they are not used for people who can afford private schools OR if the same amount of money is given to each public school despite vouchers which means the same amount of teachers with less kids and therefore smaller classes and smaller schools (that is NOT the case in my state though), OR if they are not used to promote a political agenda (which again is just plain unethical in my opinion). Vouchers sound too liberal for my tastes anyway (when I first heard about them I though they were from the left wing, imagine my surprise when so-called conservatives were some of the originators). I lump those who use vouchers as part of a political agenda as liberals too. At least in my state, it's NOT and wouldn't be cheaper at all, but cost a LOT more.
I am a proponent of simple solutions without using any extra tax money. Really, if people have a decent attitude and are willing to give a little time rather than sit on their haunches and complain, a lot can be done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.