Posted on 06/05/2008 6:19:14 AM PDT by wintertime
(snip)
The best way to determine how students fare in charter schools is to compare them to students who applied but were not admitted by lottery (which many charter schools are required to hold when oversubscribed). Studies based on lotteries allow the comparison of apples to apples, while other studies, unable to control fully for preexisting differences between the students who attend charters and traditional public schools, end up comparing apples to zebras.
The only lottery-based analyses released so far were conducted by Stanford University economist Caroline Hoxby. Examining New York City’s charter schools, she found that students admitted by lottery experienced significantly greater achievement than those who lost the lottery and were unable to attend charter schools. With Columbia University economist Jonah Rockoff, Hoxby conducted a lottery-based analysis of charter schools in Chicago and found the same thing. Students learn more when they can choose a charter school.
Competition from charter schools also spurs improvement in traditional public schools. Studies conducted in Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, and Texas—states where charters are numerous enough to challenge traditional public schools—found student achievement increases when traditional public schools are surrounded by more charter schools. When students have alternatives, schools can’t take them for granted.
Of course, there are good and bad charter schools, just as there is a mix of traditional public schools. The point is, charters give students more options to find schools that work effectively for them. And giving students those options motivates traditional public schools to be more effective for the students who remain.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessweek.com ...
We’re really starting to reverse history here...and go back to when many kids went to private schools. Not unusual back then.
I thought charter schools were special government funded schools.
PRIVATE schools receive NO public funding.
Charter schools are like the Islamic school that got caught having prayer sessions that all students had to attend (or at least wait to end before boarding the school bus home).
well, the public schools are just becoming a haven for everyone who is required to be there not wants to be there.
Charter schools are required to offer all the same tests, and are subject to open enrollment, except in rare instances.
Yet, the teachers’ unions consistently fight to prevent them from getting the same revenues.
So, charter schools must do what they do with alot less money.
Charter school laws vary from state to state, and even within states, are designed to meet the needs of the communities.
So, there are college prep charter schools, charters inside of prisons, vocational charter schools, and even charter schools on reservations.
The schools have a charter with the state or local Board of Ed., with a specific mission they must adhere to.
Do you think for a second a charter school would remain open if it was promoting an openly Christian education?
Under the law, the Michigan school violated the charter schools open admission, non-religious requirements.
This is the most important reason for opposing vouchers. It would make private schools into public schools. Strings would eventually follow any money coming directly from the government. For this reason I prefer tax credits for those donating money to charities that award private vouchers.
Ideally, I would like to see a complete collapse of the government school monopoly and the formation of a completely private system.
Tax credits are just, and would make a difference.
Charter schools were definitely a compromise, on the part of the terrified power-hungry teachers’ unions and the politicians they own, of preventing tax credits.
Charter schools have to work alot harder to meet their missions because of the political opposition from the unions & co.
I’d like to see a comparison of all options, Charter, PS, Private, and Home.
Here in NJ a report came out two months ago. Catholic private schools ranked #1, followed by other Christian and prep private schools, followed by Charter, followed by PS. Home school was not included.
Charter schools mitigate some of the inherent problems of large public school systems.
For a school to do well, two things that are required are: 1. a strong principal; 2. parents who are on-board, who are on the team.
In large public school systems, it’s difficult for the principal of any particular school to be a strong principal. Where there may be 50, 100, 200, 500 schools or more within the entire system, the principal is little more than a mid-level supervisor. He’s not really the boss. He’s accountable to the myriad rules and regulations that uniformly govern the entire system. The scope of his authority is limited, as is his flexibility in creating a school environment that actually meets the needs of the students, as opposed to one that follows the dictates of the system’s central administration.
In charter schools, by design, the principal and faculty have much more leeway and authority to create an environment that they think will be the most successful. Of course, this means that charter schools can fail, if the folks in charge of the individual school aren’t really up to the task. In the Washington, DC school system, there have been many failed charter schools.
But it also means that charter schools and succeed, and even excel. That’s certainly the case, as well, in Washington, DC.
The second necessary component to successful schools is to have parents who are on-board, who are part of the team, who will stand with the principal and teachers when the going gets rough. But most public school systems alienate parents. They communicate overtly and covertly that parents are not part of the inner core of folks who are really in charge of the education of their children. The unstated role of parents in many public school systems is to provide free labor when needed, to endorse the actions and policies of the administration and faculty - no matter how lame-brained - and to provide additional funds outside the already-grotesque amounts of money stolen by many school jurisdictions.
The first way that many public school systems communicate these things to parents is by instructing parents where their children will be sent to school. In many systems, parents are told which schools their children will attend, and have little or no choice in the matter. Taking away educational choice from parents is a great way of telling parents that their real input into their children’s education is neither needed nor wanted.
Other ways include the inability of many public school systems to accommodate the reasonable requests of parents to modify or make flexible policies, rules, and regulations that are obstacles to their children’s education. This relates back to the first point - the need for strong, powerful, flexible principals and faculty. If the principal is one of 300 principals in his school system, it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to deal flexibly with any particular child whose real needs aren’t already fully anticipated by the inflexible system in which he works.
Of course, even the attempt to account for all the real needs of individual students winds up creating massively bureaucratic subsystems designed to meet the needs of these students, but which further alienate parents, children, and even faculty and administration.
Here, too, the charter school mitigates some of these problems, as the principal and faculty, with their wider leeway and authority, can collaborate with parents to create a learning environment more suited to the specific school community in attendance at their particular school, and can deal more flexibly with individual parents and students to accommodate their particular needs. Thus, the parent becomes a valuable partner in determining and meeting the needs of his child, not a nuisance to be handled or dealt with either by brushing the parent and his concerns aside, or by pushing the parent off into some bureaucratic nightmare system allegedly designed to meet the student’s needs.
As well, the very nature of charter schools empowers parents - permitting choice for parents - and giving them a certain amount of power and leverage in the educational process - “You WILL meet the real educational needs of my child or I will take my child AND the funding that goes with him elsewhere.”
Charter schools are public schools that can reduce many of the inherent difficulties of running good, competent public schools that truly meet the educational needs of most of their students.
In short, one wonders what the public school is doing with their larger per child allotment. I think charters are a step towards vouchers.
Ping to an interesting thread on charter schools.
You might want to rethink that comment, although much of what you say is true. A large percentage of charter schools in DC perform BELOW DC public schools. Let me tell you, the bar just can't be set any lower than DC public schools, and many, many charters don't even come up to that standard.
If I can find a link for that, I'll poswt it
As well, the very nature of charter schools empowers parents - permitting choice for parents - and giving them a certain amount of power and leverage in the educational process -
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
News articles report that charters as a group do better or as well as government schools. I have never read where, on average, they do worse. But....In every study, the parents of charter school students are much, much, much more satisfied with their child’s education.
Gee! Imagine that! Satisfied and contented parents! That should count for something.
You need to put that sentence in context. Here are the two sentences right in front of it:
“Of course, this means that charter schools can fail, if the folks in charge of the individual school aren’t really up to the task. In the Washington, DC school system, there have been many failed charter schools [emphasis added].”
Let's face it - the DC public schools have traditionally been as screwed up as screwed up can be. In that charter schools flow from the same population of students, parents, teachers, faculty, and administrators as their sponsoring public school system, the fact that ANY charter schools succeed in Washington, DC is a testament to the power of the concept.
sitetest
From 2006, but discusses the challenges faced by charters. In addition, there have been articles recently about the money that charters borrowed for start up costs, but now are unable to pay back because of declining enrollment. Who will satisfy those loans? The DC public schools of course - and ultimately you and I.
Time will tell...
In the news reports I have read comparing government schools to charters and private schools the information was so massaged as to be meaningless.
Also, it is extremely difficult to close a poorly performing government school. I personally, have never see it, but I have seen charters close. That charters do close is one of the **advantages** of school choice. Unlike government schools children are not trapped in them, and unlike government schools charters are not guaranteed a continues flow of children whose lives they can destroy.
Here's a link for you: http://www.edspresso.com/2006/07/nces_study_some_preliminary_th.htm
The gold standard for studies on the benefits of school choice compares performance of students who applied for school choice and were randomly selected for admission with those who applied and were not admitted. So far, all gold-standard studies have found gains for children exercising school choice. Control-group longitudinal studies are underway in the District of Columbia and Milwaukee programs. Those apples-to-apples studies will tell us a great deal about systemic reform prospects for school choice. Unfortunately, the NCES study tells us nothing.
So charter schools often fail in DC. Big deal. It isn't as if the rest of the system performs better than... very crappy.
As for the “costs” for the failed charter schools - that's pretty bogus. If those kids were in the regular schools, even though the DC government lies, telling us they spend about $9K per kid per year, the reality is that the DC government would be spending over $20K per student per year.
And the kids would mostly not be getting educated anyway.
When you're already in the toilet, any effort to get out is better than the failure to even try.
sitetest
I'm rooting for Ms. Rhee, as well. And even Mr. Fenty, even though he is a very liberal Democrat, and I'm pretty far from it.
His willingness to take on the entrenched special interests in the school system and other human welfare systems in the DC government, actually FIRING incompetent staff, is admirable. I wish him and Ms. Rhee every bit of success in their goals.
sitetest
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.