[JayCT]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Yup. I never understood the Masuk thing way back then. The tradeoff to the long drive is a school with enough enrollment to have your typical extracurriculars and sports...and fortunately Beacon Falls is super small. Plenty of people complain about the distance but it makes you wonder if they looked into that before they moved. What stinks is that the state will never dismantle the regions. Orange is certainly big enough to go on their own, but the state turned them down the last time they tried.

The problem Prospect faced was finding a high school that could take their students. The town did not have its own high school so they had to rely on other towns for a high school but the nearby schools were already overcrowded. The closest one with enough capacity was Masuk. I believe Oxford sent their kids there too at one point. Jay

[JGBigGreen]

I agree 100% with the comment about charters in the areas with really bad schools. A study I read out of Stanford noted that in the ~33% of cases where charters outperform traditional public schools it is in areas like this.

Originally Posted by East of the River

I doubt they do better on a whole. I know a number of states that allow for profit charters had big issues with them under performing the existing schools. But most studies do show if you put a charter in an area with really bad schools (in particular a poor urban area) they will improve the scores. Again it's not the end all soloution but it does help a lot of poorer kids right now.

[Henry10]

Interesting to note that huge % of black and latino parents support charter schools. Depending on sources, over 70% and in some cases close to 90%.

College-degree or Advance-degree whites' support is at much lower numbers. Some sources I have seen is show actually less than 50% support amongst whites with advance degrees. These people who seem to have no skin in the game, think about charter schools ideologically.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by East of the River

I doubt they do better on a whole. I know a number of states that allow for profit charters had big issues with them under performing the existing schools. But most studies do show if you put a charter in an area with really bad schools (in particular a poor urban area) they will improve the scores.

But that's the idea. The charters schools were not created because Glastonbury kids were doing badly.

Charter schools are absolutely a work-around the ironclad protections that no one can fire anybody. Charter schools do better because of the accountability. Not sure why we need data for this.

I get a kick out of these studies, that show that after 4 years, basketball players who practiced more free-shots, had a higher percentage of making them in games. Wow!! What a revelation. We wouldn't know it without the study.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Yes I do.

Data for charter schools is fairly recent (1 or 2 decades). In CT I think they started in 1997 AFAIK, and Malloy does not support them. Which means charter schools in CT may get less funding. Feds are trying to plug some holes, and private orgs as well, but fact remains that charter schools get about 40% less than WE pay for every student in traditional schools.

Charters are definitely disrupters, the ubers to yellow cabbies.

Actually Malloy is a huge supporter. It's one of those things he fights with his own party about. He has backed away from time to time but he has backed them since he was Mayor.

Looking at some studies it looks like on average across the whole US charters perform the same as public schools, but much better in poor urban areas.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Interesting to note that huge % of black and latino parents support charter schools. Depending on sources, over 70% and in some cases close to 90%.

College-degree or Advance-degree whites' support is at much lower numbers. Some sources I have seen is show actually less than 50% support amongst whites with advance degrees. These people who seem to have no skin in the game, think about charter schools ideologically.

I was in Boston last week and the Governor was on the radio talking about a vote on Charter schools. This was his exact point that Charters were going to be blocked by wealthy suburban parents that would never use them anyway despite overwhelming support from the communities they would actually serve.

[Henry10]

Some charter schools do fail, either they don't meet the performance numbers or enrollment is weak, or a combination of both. So, yes stats are definitely skewed somewhat by those performing Charter schools.

But the fact is that they work better for many parents than traditional ghetto schools. And for us taxpayers it cost us less to educate / pupil.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The problem Prospect faced was finding a high school that could take their students. The town did not have its own high school so they had to rely on other towns for a high school but the nearby schools were already overcrowded. The closest one with enough capacity was Masuk. I believe Oxford sent their kids there too at one point. Jay

Oxford students did attend Masuk but that's only a few miles over the Oxford/Monroe border. Prospect is a 40 min ride four towns away.

[basehead617]

This is something I break with the left on. I'm in favor of the ability to get rid of teachers (and other public sector employees) for low levels of performance. Would it be 100% accurate and fair? No, but neither is employment in the private sector, and I don't see why they should be shielded from it any more than anyone else. I've heard no good arguments against it, other than from teachers unions for obvious reasons.

One thing says it all for me. When there's another school in your area that has a true lottery system (not a magnet school), that is agreed upon to be a much better school, and everyone wants their kids to go there, that should be ringing the alarm bells at the other schools that they are DOING SOMETHING WRONG. Unfortunately, I never hear any self-reflection from the schools, just calls for charters to be killed and more money to throw at their own issues. It's rarely the money. It's a lack of accountability from faculty, a lack of forward-thinking, and usually the administration delegating what should be their JOB (creative ways of improving the atmosphere of the school and performance of the students) to outside consultants who fleece them (and taxpayers) and provide no value.

Source: my whole life as the son of a public school teacher

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by basehead617

This is something I break with the left on. I'm in favor of the ability to get rid of teachers (and other public sector employees) for low levels of performance. Would it be 100% accurate and fair? No, but neither is employment in the private sector, and I don't see why they should be shielded from it any more than anyone else. I've heard no good arguments against it, other than from teachers unions for obvious reasons.

This sounds good at first glance, however a teachers success is based on how well the students perform. And that performance is based on a standardized test. But we know that a students success is also greatly influenced by parents, and teachers can't do anything about that.

I do think some teachers are just no good at teaching (I had some in college) but there would need to be some way to evaluate that without any biases. The teaching world is full of "office politics" so I don't think an unbiased system could ever be created.

I think if CT and other states wanted to see improvement in schools we need to start over with new ideas. The current status quo systems are generally not working or at the minimum only working for select groups. I would start with raising salaries greatly, but no one even in CT will ever go for that. Teachers after all have limitless benes and "have their summers off" and only work part time monday's thru friday's and only work 180 days a year. They're overpaid already. (this is sarcasm for those we don't get it)