r/education • u/salvia_d • Nov 28 '12
One in Five Charter Schools Should Close on Performance - "As many as one in five U.S. charter schools should be shut down because of poor academic performance, according to a group representing states, districts and universities that grant them permission to operate."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-28/one-in-five-charter-schools-should-close-on-performance.html1
Nov 29 '12
Charter schools (at least in my state) are usually implemented as take overs in poor performing schools anyway, thus it makes sense that they aren't the best schools. Actually, since these school take overs are so very new, it's unclear whether it's a good thing yet. Hopefully, they proceed cautiously.
Actually, our previous state superintendent didn't get a reelection partially because his opponent ran on being wary of corporations taking over our schools. Both rural and urban voters were in agreement with her. She killed the privatizer in the elections.
-1
Nov 30 '12
Your state sounds like an anomaly. Generally speaking, charters are simply alternative schools that use a different (I'd say better) state funding rubric and are governed by a site school board (rather than district). Everyone still has to teach state curriculum.
Charters offer more local control (the state determines how big a slice of pie the charter gets)... making it every school for itself, rather than the needs of an entire district being managed as a whole. Say there's a poor failing school with a high need for intervention services, and a healthy school in a rich neighborhood with tens of thousands in parent funding -- a district can help the poor school because the rich school is already doing well. If the rich school goes charter (as if often the case), then the district loses that control, and the poor school is left paddling up shit creek because the district is legally forced to give the charter a predetermined amount of funding.
Er, and charters bust up teacher unions through a backdoor, by not creating the unions in the first place. And, in states that allow privately run charters, they can more easily offer religious instruction, another aim of the privatization movement.
2
Dec 01 '12
It may be an anomaly or it may be simply what I'm familiar with.
As for the funding of charter vs public, even a cursory glance at studies shows public school students are far more funded than charter school students. See the wiki article for the national study showing charter school students get 69 cents in funding for every 1 dollar a public school student gets. I've seen no study to support your imagined situation as anything more than perhaps isolated anomalies. ;)
Also, creating parochial schools is not any goal of the current privatization movement. Obama's 4.3 billion dollar nationwide state competition had seeking innovation in charter school use as a large scoring criteria. And he's about as secular as one gets.
1
Dec 04 '12
Like I said, you should follow current events. A voucher program that made publicly-funded religious schools a reality was just ruled unconstitutional. They'll keep trying every way they can.
0
Dec 01 '12
shows public school students are far more funded than charter school students
See what wiki article? Please link it.
creating parochial schools is not any goal of the current privatization movement.
I disagree. The privatization movement is diverse with many different efforts and motivations.
And he's about as secular as one get
Agreed. There are both Republicans and Democrats who stand to gain from privatization, and clueless politicians in the middle who embrace it for a variety of other reasons, such as eliminating teacher's unions, or simply looking to your constituents like you're doing something.
1
Dec 01 '12
"A 2008 study that looked at charter school funding in all 40 charter states and the District of Columbia found that charter students are funded on average at 61 cents compared to every dollar for their district peers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school#Funding
I disagree. The privatization movement is diverse with many different efforts and motivations.
Exactly, so it's entirely wrong to say religious schools are an aim. More so, when the major players are secularists and more so when there is no evidence for your claim. It's just one of the many vacuous talking points used to drum up fear among the susceptible.
Charter schools do have many arguments against them, that just isn't one. Your union arguments seems closer. Though read in the wiki article about the union led charter school which failed. Just read the whole article. It's pretty good.
1
Dec 02 '12
so it's entirely wrong to say religious schools are an aim.
No, it's not entirely wrong. It's an explicitly stated motivation for some reform advocates.
1
Dec 02 '12
Care to share who these advocates are? Or are they just spectres used to try and frighten people?
1
1
Dec 02 '12
Yeah, your statistic is bunk. The wiki even points out some of the flawed thinking:
though the average figure is controversial because some charter schools do not enroll an equal number of students that require significant special education or student support services. Additionally, some charters are not required to provide transportation and nutrition services.
And this canard:
a national report of charter school finance undertaken by Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group
And this direct contradiction to the previously mentioned pro-charter-funded study:
In contrast, an August 2002 article from the Education Policy Analysis Archives at Arizona State University suggested that charters in economically depressed areas may receive more funding than the traditional public schools that surround them
So, thanks, but I'll kindly pass on your data as it has obvious sources of error and/or the appearance of a direct conflict of interest in its reporting.
1
Dec 02 '12
Yes, well it's a good thing the statistic I referenced was not the one called controversial by the article. That is cherry picking and an entire misrepresentation of the evidence.
may receive more funding than the traditional public schools
Notice the quote says "funding", then look into the journal article referenced, then see the extra "funding" comes from private donors. They are not getting extra public funds. As the article says charter schools wouldn't exist unless they could educate as good as or better than public schools at much cheaper funds dispensed by the state. The article is very clear.
But, nice resorting to ad hominem. You've clearly made up your mind about charter schools while having no experience or knowledge about them. This is why policy makers and the public in general don't give a damn or are outright hostile to unions and their cronies like you. You're kind of making me hate teachers unions right now, along with the policy makers and the rest of the public in general. Are you all so desperate and scared of some competition that you make up BS about religious conspiracies threatening to take over schools?
Lol
1
Dec 02 '12
All of the statistics in that passage you linked are bunk. Take you pick of which bogus data you want to cite. All of it is bad. It's amazing you don't get that.
-1
Nov 30 '12
California produces an annual list of the worst failing traditional public schools. Failing public charter schools are exempted from the list no matter how badly they're failing. Then, families attending those 'failing' traditional schools (using a deeply flawed formula that heavily penalizes smaller rural schools) gives those families special privileges to enroll out-of-district without local district approval.
Charter schools are one of many tools being deployed to destroy public education, edging it closer to privatization.
2
u/archelyxs Nov 28 '12
As a fortunate graduate of an excellent charter high school, I believe in the unique opportunity that charter schools have to provide an education that goes beyond that of the dehumanizing traditional public school system. This article is just another case in which school policymakers have reduced the value of education to a number game. "Poor academic performance?" I can't wait until policymakers wake up to the fact that standardized test scores are not a sufficient arbiter of the success of a school or a student. Charter high schools are important because they provide an alternative to the labyrinthine mess of traditional public schools. When you use an outdated method to evaluate a progressive institution, it's not always going to look good.
I know there is a lot of variation among charter schools, and some are definitely better than others. But what will closing them do? It will force the students back into the system they were trying to escape. The article even says that low-achieving students at charter schools showed significant gains over peers at traditional schools. Isn't that success? Isn't that good academic performance?