Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about charter schools in other states, but where I live charter schools receive 10.3% LESS per pupil than the public schools do. Homeschools and private receive no public funding at all.
Considering the monetary impact only, charter school students free up 10% every year they attend while homeschooled/private students are freeing up 100% year after year. Since the funding is based on the number of school age children in the district and not on how many actually attend public schools, every family that chooses an option other than public boosts the per pupil funds available for public education.
I agree that charter schools should be subject to the same testing as the public schools so we can insure the funds are being well spent. Since they receive no public monies, homeschool and private should be exempt.
I'm sure it varies by state, but the last I knew, charter school students in Florida have to take the same tests as the public school students. Homeschool and private school students do not.
I'm sure it varies by state, but the last I knew, charter school students in Florida have to take the same tests as the public school students. Homeschool and private school students do not.
Then I see no issue. If the funding is equal and the testing is equal, the only variable is how the school chooses to use the funds and what they emphasize like smaller class size.
First you make a suggestion which isn't always true. Like suburban schools, bullying comes down to whether administrations tolerates it or not.
Bullying is something that happens in every school, you can reduce bullying, you can't stop it. Schools who have mostly bad students, tend to bully the few good students that are left. The result is that the good students often turn bad, or become emotional wrecks.
It will be a lot better, if they can go to school with other good students, and then we can figure out how to deal with the rest.
Quote:
Re the bold: yes they should put more resource into schools, but it's insulting and wrong to assume the teachers need to be better. You also assume that teaching and material is different from any other school...which is not at all true.
No, it isn't insulting, its reality. Bad schools attract teachers who don't care, and it repels teachers who do care. Hence it is important to fire bad teachers, and have more incentives for teachers to teach at bad schools.
And yes the teaching materials is not that different, but it should be different. Bad schools are filled with students with short attention spans, you place a book in front of them and they won't read it. I would suggest to use movies and computer software to teach them what they need. But to do that, you need resources.
That is never the requirement. You get closed down if a significant proportion of the students are below the required level.
The requirement of AYP was supposed to be 100% at or above level by 2014 which was totally unrealistic. Good schools were not making AYP because they had a significant portion of kids at or above level, but could not get that extra few percent up to that. As a consequence, many schools now have waivers to get out of AYP measures.
The requirement of AYP was supposed to be 100% at or above level by 2014 which was totally unrealistic. Good schools were not making AYP because they had a significant portion of kids at or above level, but could not get that extra few percent up to that. As a consequence, many schools now have waivers to get out of AYP measures.
Bullying is something that happens in every school, you can reduce bullying, you can't stop it. Schools who have mostly bad students, tend to bully the few good students that are left. The result is that the good students often turn bad, or become emotional wrecks.
It will be a lot better, if they can go to school with other good students, and then we can figure out how to deal with the rest.
No, it isn't insulting, its reality. Bad schools attract teachers who don't care, and it repels teachers who do care. Hence it is important to fire bad teachers, and have more incentives for teachers to teach at bad schools.
And yes the teaching materials is not that different, but it should be different. Bad schools are filled with students with short attention spans, you place a book in front of them and they won't read it. I would suggest to use movies and computer software to teach them what they need. But to do that, you need resources.
I'd get banned for saying what I feel about you. Spend a day with me and I'll show you my son's school and his siblings school district. The teachers in my son's school were extremely dedicated and those that sucked left quickly. I actually found far more mediocre teachers in the suburban schools. The problem with inner city schools aside from the poverty that comes with it is they have to deal with judgments from people like you who don't see anything positive in poor or minority children. It's a shame some kids have to deal with unthinkable situations because they are far more deserving of a good life than people like you.
I'm sure it varies by state, but the last I knew, charter school students in Florida have to take the same tests as the public school students. Homeschool and private school students do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Then I see no issue. If the funding is equal and the testing is equal, the only variable is how the school chooses to use the funds and what they emphasize like smaller class size.
The testing is the same, but the rules to play by are different. The funding isn't the same either. You can say each student is $6,000 to educate but that's really not true. A high performing kid will come in way under that while a special needs student can range from $15,000-$200,000...just look at what your local school district spends to outsource certain severe kids, if yo don't believe that. So the charter will take the funding have mostly high performing kids, hardly any special ed and NO SEVERE special ed.
I can't understand why smart people don't see this.
I'd get banned for saying what I feel about you. Spend a day with me and I'll show you my son's school and his siblings school district. The teachers in my son's school were extremely dedicated and those that sucked left quickly. I actually found far more mediocre teachers in the suburban schools. The problem with inner city schools aside from the poverty that comes with it is they have to deal with judgments from people like you who don't see anything positive in poor or minority children. It's a shame some kids have to deal with unthinkable situations because they are far more deserving of a good life than people like you.
You are wrong, bad schools do get worse teachers. Your personal experience might be biased or your school might be a special case. Personal experience is not real evidence. Here is some real evidence.
And no matter which of these three measures of teacher quality they used, guess what? They got the same result. Disadvantaged students across the state's elementary, middle and high schools ended up with the worst teachers – the ones who not only produced the smallest test score gains, but also had the fewest years of experience and the lowest licensure exam scores.
The testing is the same, but the rules to play by are different. The funding isn't the same either. You can say each student is $6,000 to educate but that's really not true. A high performing kid will come in way under that while a special needs student can range from $15,000-$200,000...just look at what your local school district spends to outsource certain severe kids, if yo don't believe that. So the charter will take the funding have mostly high performing kids, hardly any special ed and NO SEVERE special ed.
I can't understand why smart people don't see this.
Okay, I can accept that as a reason why it's unfair. Here's what the situation was in Florida two years ago (don't know if it's the same now):
Florida charter school students receive $2,130 less in funding, on average, than students who attend traditional public schools
<snip>
Florida is a different story though because the state per-student funding is equal. One reason for the difference here is local taxes school districts collect for building maintenance and construction. Charter schools don’t receive a share of that money in most Florida school districts. Charter schools also typically receive a smaller share of federal funding.
School districts may also collect up to a 5 percent administrative fee from charter schools.
Since Florida only pays out about $6500 per kid, charter schools are getting a third less, plus they pay an administrative fee that public schools don't. So it would seem like that's helping to make the playing field a bit more level in this state, anyway.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
