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.
Reading lots of smear articles about Charter schools lately, but then again there are lots of smear articles about public schools from the voucher crowd so *shrug*.
Hah. Maybe you should look into the guy, Steve Perry, that he's vested with. Diddy's school is primarily taxpayer funded, has no public oversight and is nothing more than a write off for him.
Wouldn't the parents of the students be the oversight committee?
Standardized tests do not prove a teacher's worth. And you are totally off and misrepresenting the "life outcomes".
How so? One persons good life outcome is another persons failure. It's entirely subjective. It's Don't worry be happy.
Standardized tests measure how much a child knows of a subject. Can he read? Can he add, divide, etc. If 22 children go into a class and none of them acquire any new knowledge over a school year it is an indication that nothing was learned. It could be because the teacher didn't teach. It could because the kids couldn't learn. But if another class in the same school, the same grade, showed that it had learned that is an indication the teacher in the first class didn't teach.
"Worth" is an entirely subjective term. A teacher might have entertained his class for a whole year, kept them out of jail, no girls got pregnant, etc. But the teacher's job is to teach and test results help indicate whether he did or didn't.
That random lottery is something you have to sign up for so only involved parents will do so in the first place. Special ed students somehow don't win the random lottery either. Then the school can "counsel out" kids they don't want to deal with.
It's not as if problem kids blossom at public schools either. They are problems.
NYC is full of failure factories and almost every last one of them is a public school. They are given 2nd chances time and time again, threatened with closure, reformed, reprogrammed, re-thised and re-thated. But nothing changes. Learning just doesn't happen.
There have been three responses. First, the failure factories get more money and their 5th and really, really last 2nd chance and this time we mean it. Second, charter schools are blamed because examples of success can't be allowed. Third, the messenger (standardized tests) is shot.
No standardized tests, no failure. No learning either but no one will know. That's 100% of the opposition to standardized tests.
In short, because charters school are not doing anything amazing. Selecting students of involved parents, throwing out underperforming kids and discipline problems, not dealing with special ed students...these are all things public school teachers know if they did, they'd all of a sudden be considered miracle workers. So anyone with a brain can see charters get high achieving status and test scores by eliminating the challenging students.
What's sad is not only the questionable tactics charters have engaged in, but the fact that they aren't doing that well after all.
The main thing I agree with in regards to this comment is the bold.
I'll note that I am a supporter of school choice, both in regards to charters and vouchers. My oldest child went to traditional public then a highly rated charter school and now is back in the public schools system. So I have a lot of experience with both options. I also have nephews who use vouchers here in Ohio to go to private school so I have some experience in that as well.
In regards to the bold, you are correct that charters do not do anything amazing. All they do is heavily enforce a discipline code compared to public schools. They also provide required additional academic work (extended school day and even "Saturday school" for kids who are severely behind).
However, the higher performing charters do well because of the fact that they do not have to comply with teacher unions in various locations that have horrible unions that do a disservice to children that they instruct. NYC comes to mind and CPS (Chicago). In many urban areas it is VERY difficult to get rid of bad teachers and IMO they are one of the main problems in regards to the lower levels of achievement of minority youth in many urban areas.
Also, charters can REQUIRE educational remediation, whereas public schools cannot do so. Charters will ensure that a child is proficient in specific areas and especially so in math and reading. They close gaps by requiring remediation of children who come to them from the public schools. They do not feel that poor minority children, on the whole cannot learn at a high level. They don't make excuses for the children. I have personally seen educators in the public school do this. Or they get burned out and they are allowed to basically baby sit kids and complain about the kids parents instead of ensuring that those kids learn. I do feel a majority of public educators are great teachers. I've had my share of them. And please note my mom is an educator. Education is the most well represented career in my family. I have family members that range from paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, teachers, and principals and we all are especially dedicated to the idea that all children are capable of learning at a high level unless they have a disability that precludes this. And even those who are disabled - I have a nephew who is ASD (high functioning) can be taught if they are not to severely disabled. IMO it is the bureaucracy that is holding back higher performing urban districts and not necessarily the teachers. It is bureaucracy and union contracts that keep the bad apple teachers around who no longer care about teaching children to a high standard or who hold outrageous biases against children based on their neighborhood of residence or ethncity/race. I have seen this many times and it is a huge complaint of my mom at her school being that there are many teachers who belittle and speak negatively about the children in their charge based on those children primarily living in public housing projects. And FWIW many of those kids are not minorities, they are white children who come from poor families. They get this sort of bias as well in public schools in cities that have a large poor, white population.
You need to think critically and see why that is happening. Are standardized tests all they focus on? Previous staff members at Success Academy have said yes. Do they have access to the the test before hand? Previous staff members at Success have said yes. Do they eliminate students just before tests are taken? Records say yes.
On this, traditional public schools also do the same things that you are speaking of in regards to Success Academy. My kid initially went to an Atlanta Public School in GA which was involved in the "cheating scandal" whereas teachers and administrators did the above and also during and after the tests, told the kids the answers or answered the questions for them after the kids left. They held test changing parties.
Also, I am not someone who feels that standardized testing is not a useful tool in rating student's skills. I personally believe that kids should be tested 2-4 times per year (once per quarter) to ensure that their skill level, especially in math and reading is consistently improving. Tests can be used to see where a child is lacking in a math skill in particular and that information can and should be used to provide additional instruction to the students in this regard. This is what schools like Success Academy do. My son went to an Atlanta charter after leaving the public school and this is what that school did as well. They used the MAP test 3 times per year to ensure that the kids were progressing. They also took ITBS to see how the kids measured against other kids in the nation. They also took the GA state mandated test since they were required to do so. For the GA state test, they used "practice tests" and went over skills to ensure the kids knew those skills.
Along with test prep, these schools also provide a regular education where they take field trips and they have extracurricular activities and they have more science experiments, etc. So they are very similar to public schools except they use those practice exams more and they test more to ensure that their kids are proficient. This is something IMO that more public schools should do as well. The reason they don't is because of too much political intrusion into our educational system by both the community at-large versus charters.
However on the elimination of students, I don't think many charters kick kids out due to not performing well on tests. Usually it is for a behavioral reason or because of conflicts with the parents not being as involved as they need to be in the education plan/contract for the student. For instance, I know a particular charter school has a required Saturday school for students in the remedial program who are behind academically. They do not provide transportation on Saturdays and if the parent fails to bring or send their kid to required Saturday school, they can be kicked out the school. Public schools cannot do things like this because it would be seen as discriminatory. And I understand that their hands are tied on this issue so they have to keep those poor performing children and as a result those poor performers show up in their ratings and standardized test results.
ETA: I personally believe that all public school should be allowed to enforce an educational plan/contract for all kids that state that if remediation is necessary for those kids then the parent must comply or the child will get sent to an out of district school for non-complying parents. But the logistics of that would be hard to manage. When I was younger we had what we all called "the bad kid school" whereas if a kid in any of our public schools misbehaved in a severe way or if they had a GPA of under 1.5, they were sent to "the bad kid school." A friend of mine was sent there in high school because he decided to skip school too much and got below a 1.5 gpa. He made sure to increase his grades and come back to our regular school within a quarter. He said that school was for wild, crazy kids lol. Sending those disruptive and truant kids away from out neighborhood schools ensured those of us in a poor to working class neighborhood didn't have a lot of distractions in the classroom and that we received a decent education. A parent sued about this practice back in the 90s and that program was halted and there is no longer a "bad kids school." People started taking their kids out of the public schools due to too many "bad kids" in the schools and because we have a very well regarded voucher program here in Ohio now that many poor and minority families utilize in order to ensure their kids get a good education. The local district began a "magnet school" program that are public schools, governed by the board, but those select schools also have "contracts" where if the kids or parents don't do certain things (volunteer for the school, do homework/school work, remain respectful to educators, etc.) then they can be kicked out of the magnet school program and thrown into the regular schools which now are greatly affected by all of those "bad kids" in neighborhoods being allowed to stay there.
Both of your sources are from corporate right wing groups. "Stand for Children/Stand.org" appears to be child welfare oriented group but in fact they are connected to corporate right wing groups. For or Against Children
The republican issue of privatizing schools is not for the benefit of children, but rather its connected to a broader republican plan to privatize the Post Office, Public libraries, prisons, Social Security, ex.ex. The republicans want to privatize these government agencies to transfer their funding to corporate America and Wall Street.
And groups like your first source don't just focus on children. They also focus on things like union-busting (because unions cause higher worker wages and higher worker wages directly lower corporate profits.) Tracking the money funding conservative school boards
But then other countries privatize some of their government agencies and many non-corporate groups believe Charter Schools are a good thing. But Charter schools (even outside of republican corporate hands) have downsides.
"#1 Charter Schools are NOT Public Schools... Public Schools are Child Centered... Charter Schools are Profit Centered."
"#2 Charter schools siphon off money from public schools. The whole point of charter schools is to use tax payer money to increase corporate profits."
"#3 Charter Schools are NOT Non-profits. Instead the need to make a profit makes them much more expensive than comparable public schools."
I fully concede that US government agencies are inefficient. And I concede that America's public schools could be much, much better. But then some/many public schools in America are first class (like those in Lafayette, La.)
The bottom line is republican plans to privatize schools are connected to a broader corporate agenda. Like abolishing the EPA so they can no longer fine and regulate corporations, or abolishing the "Occupational Safety and Health Act" so its cheaper to run factories, or abolishing the "Consumer Product Safety Commission" to lower corporate expenses.
Personally I believe that Charter schools could be a good thing especially in poverty stricken areas (but I don't want a republican corporate agenda anywhere around it.)
On this, wanted to state that you are also posting biased, liberal sources.
As stated earlier in the thread, not all charter schools are "for profit." The ones that are the best performing are actually "non-profits."
Also, as I have stated in this thread, many charters are not pushed by "republicans." They are pushed by poor minority, majority black parents in urban areas. This is due to the fact that they "care" about their children's educations, contrary to what people believe. I remember people were mad at me for taking my black son out of the public school system and mentioned some of the things you mention above - that I would be "taking money out of the public school system"
My response to that is "so what!" It is the same response as other black parents. Why should we wait around for public schools in our neighborhood to improve or get better while our children suffer during that improvement period. My kid needed a good education right now. Not in the future and I was not going to wait around for improvement when my kid needs to learn math and how to read right now. Education is urgent for children today in our economy and black parents in particular know that education is the key to decreasing poverty in the black demographic and we want to ensure that our kids can leave a bad school and go to a good one even if we cannot afford to live in a nicer, public school district. IMO and in the opinion of many black parents, your "reasons" above for not wanting school choice are from an outside perspective, whereas your children are not suffering and languishing in a poor public school so you can safely sit back and complain about "Republicans" because you and your family are not directly impacted by poor educational outcomes and repeated "statistics" about black males in particular that are VERY scary to black mothers. We want the best for our sons and will get the best for them as much as we can right now.
So even though you concede that charter schools are a good idea in poverty stricken neighborhoods, you posting the rhetoric in the links above and conspiratorial opinions regarding the Koch brothers and corporate takeover of all sorts of public entities that are not education related, you are in effect stating that you don't want poor and minority children to have an option to leave their bad public school and go to a high performing charter.
I'll also note that your first link where the teacher describes how bad the charter kid 1st graders have it is laughable. My kid at his charter went on multiple field trips. The school was run basically by crunchy liberals and they focused on "the arts" and later on "STEAM" instead of STEM. They had a max of 8 kids per educator and were a family environment focused on one on one learning in a "project based" setting. All charter schools are not alike. There are many different types and for those who especially live in a horrible zone for schools, they should have the option to take advantage of those charters.
ETA: When my kid left the crunchy liberal charter and started at his STEM public high school (which is the highest rated in our area) they said he was the top rated math student in his grade and higher than any kid they had ever taken as a first year student. At his school, since it is STEM based, they said they usually get kids who are severely lacking in math skills. He was in the 98th percentile in math and I attribute that to the fact that his crunchy charter school focused extensively on math skills and they played "Math Jeopardy" and "Math-Olympics" and they did 2 hours of math (and 2 hours of reading) per day. They played math computer games in school. They had math competitions. They were not sitting around being bored, sad charter school kids whose only purpose was to get a check. That school is basically the only thing I miss about GA since we moved back to Ohio (the school and my few friends still in GA). I was sad because my youngest child never got to attend it. I literally LOVED that school and the dedication of the teachers and staff. They LOVED my kid and he still is in contact with his teachers via social media and when we go back to Atlanta, he always wants to go visit them. They were like family to us. Too many kids at inner city public schools are considered little stereotypes and are not treated with the respect my kid got at his charter and this is why black parents in particular like charters. They are much more likely for many of us to exude a love and respect for our children no matter their neighborhood of residence or family circumstance. Also, please note at the charter, my kid had friends who parents were in prison, who were foster kids, who had ADHD and other behavioral and developmental disabilities. The school worked with those kids too and they were high performers in both the classroom and on standardized test. They had a "no fail" policy, whereas all kids had to get at least an 80% on all math, reading, and science tests in particular to continue to the next level in instruction. They made sure those kids were well learned.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 09-09-2016 at 08:05 AM..
The main thing I agree with in regards to this comment is the bold.
I'll note that I am a supporter of school choice, both in regards to charters and vouchers. My oldest child went to traditional public then a highly rated charter school and now is back in the public schools system. So I have a lot of experience with both options. I also have nephews who use vouchers here in Ohio to go to private school so I have some experience in that as well.
In regards to the bold, you are correct that charters do not do anything amazing. All they do is heavily enforce a discipline code compared to public schools. They also provide required additional academic work (extended school day and even "Saturday school" for kids who are severely behind).
However, the higher performing charters do well because of the fact that they do not have to comply with teacher unions in various locations that have horrible unions that do a disservice to children that they instruct. NYC comes to mind and CPS (Chicago). In many urban areas it is VERY difficult to get rid of bad teachers and IMO they are one of the main problems in regards to the lower levels of achievement of minority youth in many urban areas.
Also, charters can REQUIRE educational remediation, whereas public schools cannot do so. Charters will ensure that a child is proficient in specific areas and especially so in math and reading. They close gaps by requiring remediation of children who come to them from the public schools. They do not feel that poor minority children, on the whole cannot learn at a high level. They don't make excuses for the children. I have personally seen educators in the public school do this. Or they get burned out and they are allowed to basically baby sit kids and complain about the kids parents instead of ensuring that those kids learn. I do feel a majority of public educators are great teachers. I've had my share of them. And please note my mom is an educator. Education is the most well represented career in my family. I have family members that range from paraprofessionals, teaching assistants, teachers, and principals and we all are especially dedicated to the idea that all children are capable of learning at a high level unless they have a disability that precludes this. And even those who are disabled - I have a nephew who is ASD (high functioning) can be taught if they are not to severely disabled. IMO it is the bureaucracy that is holding back higher performing urban districts and not necessarily the teachers. It is bureaucracy and union contracts that keep the bad apple teachers around who no longer care about teaching children to a high standard or who hold outrageous biases against children based on their neighborhood of residence or ethncity/race. I have seen this many times and it is a huge complaint of my mom at her school being that there are many teachers who belittle and speak negatively about the children in their charge based on those children primarily living in public housing projects. And FWIW many of those kids are not minorities, they are white children who come from poor families. They get this sort of bias as well in public schools in cities that have a large poor, white population.
I'm in the middle of a thousand things (taking a break for some C-D...yeah I don't get me either ) I'll answer more of this but wanted to touch on the bolded. It's not the teacher's union that are against discipline. So far charters don't have to comply with most state and federal laws, so comparing the two is disingenuous.
Look I have a kid who just graduated from a "low performing" inner city school and two now in the suburban school. Plenty of good teachers in the city school would be considered ineffective because of the kids they teach and plenty of mediocre teachers in the suburbs would be considered effective. And you can fire bad teachers. My dad did it as a principal. You just have to to do the work. Come down on administrators who don't want to administer instead.
On this, traditional public schools also do the same things that you are speaking of in regards to Success Academy. My kid initially went to an Atlanta Public School in GA which was involved in the "cheating scandal" whereas teachers and administrators did the above and also during and after the tests, told the kids the answers or answered the questions for them after the kids left. They held test changing parties.
.
And those teachers were caught and being punished whereas Success is not. I thought I read some were getting jail time. too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felix C
Charter = Private ?
If the public has no oversight and no say on how the building is run and the school does not have to abide by public school regulations, then yes it is private. If they do not have to take every kid who lives in the district, then they are not true public schools. The only thing public about charters is the money they take.
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.
) I'll answer more of this but wanted to touch on the bolded. It's not the teacher's union that are against discipline. So far charters don't have to comply with most state and federal laws, so comparing the two is disingenuous. 
