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.
The United States was founded, formed and grew to international prominence with virtually no government involvement in schooling. Before the advent of government-controlled schools, literacy was high (91-97% in the North, 81% in the South), private and community schools proliferated. For the first 150 years of America's settlement and the first 50 to 75 years of the nation's existence, government schooling as it is known today did not exist. Early America was arguably the freest civil society that has ever existed.
While literacy was high among white males, that does not account for women and minorities.
Quote:
In 1974, University of Montana scholar Kenneth Lockridge’s groundbreaking book, Literacy in Colonial New England, surveyed evidence from legal records and offered provisional conclusions—“The exercise is bound to be tentative, as it uses a biased sample and an ambiguous measure”—but he made the case that, among white New England men, about 60 percent of the population was literate between 1650 and 1670, a figure that rose to 85 percent between 1758 and 1762, and to 90 percent between 1787 and 1795. In cities such as Boston, the rate had come close to 100 percent by century’s end.
Yet contrasting the rate of literacy in the 21st century to that of the 18th century is difficult as measurements vary based on how literacy is defined, and is proportional to the population considered during these time periods.
The point of the NY Times op-ed piece seems to be that rich white liberals pay a lot of school taxes and could easily send their kids to private school and therefore get fancy public schools while poor blacks get pushed around. That didn't start with school choice.
If the nieghborhood schools were so great, why did they close? Why did the poor black parents choose to send their kids to other neighborhoods, forcing the neighborhood schools to close? DC is mostly black. Does the writer expect us to believe that the only good public schools are in the rich white enclaves, and none are in black neighborhoods?
To me, charter schools are a better way for motivated, hard working students to ace even better in classes. Nearly all charter schools will have smaller class sizes and smaller school bodies, making it more intimate between students, teachers, and parents. Unmotivated, apathetic students will not do better if they choose to. However, the environment of a charter school may make it easier for at-risk students to see why they should be motivated, particularly if everyone is not. I am the parent of a student who allowed them to go to a charter school instead of the local 'high test score, award-winning' high school which has a very unfriendly environment. Yes, if you went to the school and was motivated enough, you could do well. Could you do better, of course yes!
Charter schools are not intended, in Colorado anyway, to be private schools at public school rates, ie, free for students who are already high-achieving motivated kids. From the Colorado Dept. of Education:
In authorizing charter schools, the General Assembly created an avenue for parents, teachers, and community members "to take responsible risks and create new, innovative, more flexible ways of educating all children within the public school system."
"Different pupils learn differently," notes the act. The act seeks the creation of schools with "high, rigorous standards for pupil performance, " with special emphasis on expanded opportunities for low-achieving students.
To me, charter schools are a better way for motivated, hard working students to ace even better in classes. Nearly all charter schools will have smaller class sizes and smaller school bodies, making it more intimate between students, teachers, and parents. Unmotivated, apathetic students will not do better if they choose to. However, the environment of a charter school may make it easier for at-risk students to see why they should be motivated, particularly if everyone is not. I am the parent of a student who allowed them to go to a charter school instead of the local 'high test score, award-winning' high school which has a very unfriendly environment. Yes, if you went to the school and was motivated enough, you could do well. Could you do better, of course yes!
The charter schools around here are HORRIBLE. There are a few exceptions but mainly they are full of kids who's parents can't say NO, test scores are worse then the inner city schools. I would never in a million years send my kids to a charter school. Now, our public schools rank in the top 3 nationally so that may be why.
The charter schools around here are HORRIBLE. There are a few exceptions but mainly they are full of kids who's parents can't say NO, test scores are worse then the inner city schools. I would never in a million years send my kids to a charter school. Now, our public schools rank in the top 3 nationally so that may be why.
I believe that nationally, charter school test scores tend to be no higher in general than neighborhood schools. It is true around here as well that many charter schools have students who haven't done well in the regular schools; the parents are sure another school is the answer. Charter schools are a part of the public school system.
I believe that nationally, charter school test scores tend to be no higher in general than neighborhood schools. It is true around here as well that many charter schools have students who haven't done well in the regular schools; the parents are sure another school is the answer. Charter schools are a part of the public school system.
Up our way there is a charter school with a student body that's about 99% black/hispanic. The public schools in that district are maybe 50% black/hispanic. If they are going to compare test scores, the Albert Shanker Institute should exclude the white/Asian scores from the public school sample so they're comparing apples to apples. In other words, they should compare black/hispanic charter school students with black/hispanic public school students.
And another thing, it's not all about test scores. Parents who choose charter schools are also concerned about environment and peer influences.
I am white and have chosen Catholic school for my kids for a number of reasons. I also live outside the district with the charter school I talked about above.
Up our way there is a charter school with a student body that's about 99% black/hispanic. The public schools in that district are maybe 50% black/hispanic. If they are going to compare test scores, the Albert Shanker Institute should exclude the white/Asian scores from the public school sample so they're comparing apples to apples. In other words, they should compare black/hispanic charter school students with black/hispanic public school students.
This is a fair point. My understanding is that there have been studies done that adjust for socioeconomic status that are not anymore flattering to charter schools--in general--than you might expect. Though on the flip side, the best studies will also find a way to adjust for the motivation factor that is found in many of the students and families that seek out charter schools and jump through the necessary hoops to get their children enrolled. Families that will do that for their children will also tend to be ones that will take education seriously and put more pressure on their children to succeed, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
And another thing, it's not all about test scores. Parents who choose charter schools are also concerned about environment and peer influences.
Another good point and one I agree with, but it rarely ever works out like that. In many places, parents do not have real choice because all that matters to lawmakers and the clowns in charge is test scores. Parents oftentimes won't have the option to choose a "failing" charter school even if the parents like the school for the environment or special programs it offers. There was a charter school in Indianapolis that was wildly popular with families that was closed because it ranked in the bottom portion of all Indiana schools.
And another thing, it's not all about test scores. Parents who choose charter schools are also concerned about environment and peer influences.
In St Louis, parents mainly choose charter schools because they 8-5 school days that correspond better with the parents' work days. Results in tremendous savings in child care.
In St Louis, parents mainly choose charter schools because they 8-5 school days that correspond better with the parents' work days. Results in tremendous savings in child care.
Do you have firsthand knowledge of this happening? That sounds mighty selfish, and doesn't fit the stereotype of charter parents being concerned about their kids.
Presumably the teachers at the public charter schools are also union members. How are they compensated for the 8-5 day? Is it really an 8-5 "school day" or are the hours 3-5 considered "aftercare" or "study hall"? How are sports and other after-school activities handled?
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.
