Skip to comments.Today's Lesson: Charter Schools Work
Posted on 12/19/2004 1:28:14 AM PST by bruinbirdmanEdited on 12/19/2004 2:13:11 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Widely reported this week was a study on charter schools by the Department of Education. Using national aggregate data, it concluded that charter students lag public school students in reading and math.
But in another study, Harvard's Caroline Hoxby concludes otherwise. Hoxby finds that charter students soundly outpace their public school peers and that, as charter schools mature, their students' lead grows even stronger.
The difference between the two studies is methodology, and even some Department of Education officials agree that Hoxby's is superior.
Hoxby's study shows that charters are especially adept at serving students in minority and high-poverty areas. Where it's most needed, school choice works best.
Read Why the NCES Study Is Not the Only--Or Best--Word on Charter School Evaluation by Jennifer A. Marshall and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D.
Charter schools have the advantage (generally) that it's more of a burden on the parents, and therefore you have a higher percentage of involved parents, but it's still the same old system.
Yep, Christian schools are the only answer for the inner city poor kids.
Publik skrewels are still publik skrewels, no matter what you call them.
Parents! For the love of your children, keep them out the goobermint indoctrination camps.
>>It doesn't matter becasue charter schools still use the same teacher pool<<
Not here in MI. Our teachers come without the Unions tacked on. There is a major difference.
Also, Charters may die out on their own, but at least here (where we throw money at useless school districts) we have waiting lists out the wahzoo.
Charters are the only hope for some parents. We have three districts in our area that are awful. Detroit, Pontiac and Mt. Clemens. Parents drive their kids 30 to 45 minutes to get them to a Charter rather than throwing them to the wolves in their home districts. These parents see a good education and no fashion show going on in these schools. In the meantime, the home districts have had to improve just to keep the students there.
Except Detroit that is. The Detroit district, who screwed up a deal with a very rich donor who was willing to sink 5 mil into Charter High Schools in the inner city, has the ear of the media and just screams that they need more money.
In MI, we are given $6,700 per child. Of that we are ranked 43rd in the country on the amount spent on that child.
If a management company can give a better education for the same price, while taking a profit and giving the competition that will improve the other schools, I say great!
I would prefer vouchers but I will take what I can get.
BTW, I homeschool!
That isn't necessarily so. My daughter worked in a Charter School for several years and she isn't a fad person nor were many of the people she worked with.
These schools allow the children to learn more and more quickly than public schools. The program is pace based per student. There are many advantages to these kinds of schools for those who need/are looking for an alternative.
It would seem that when someone doesn't agree with an idea it is easy to throw around all kinds of ideas even if they aren't true.
Many children profit from Charter Schools
IMO, the results, especially over the short term, are not as important as the fact that charters expand the control of customers over the product. Anything that takes power from the bureaucracy is positive.
I think the charter is better, but not because of the teachers or administration. The school is better becasue the parents are more involved and place a high value on their childrens education. Just the fact that there is no bus service to the school, requiring the kids be driven to and from everyday, cuts out the parents that see school as simply free day care.
This significantly reduces discipline problems. Furthermore, it's easier for the charter to kick out kids that can't or won't behave. This is the single advantage to the charter school.
And yes there is a long waiting list for this school, people wait for years for a spot.
My point is that ciriculum for teacher education in the US is controled by the unions, whether or not the teachers are in the unions. The wierd ideas are universal, as far as I can tell, thoughout the country.
Take home work. Reading for example. The teacher assigns the kid 20 minutes a night (any book they want). I'm supposed to sign a piece of paper that they did it. It's absurd. I can say they sat with a book for twenty minutes but I can't say they read. Furthermore, it doesn't tell anyone if they understood what they read. What the teacher needs to do is give them all the same thing to read and then test on comprehension. Or better yet have them write a description of what they read. But that would mean work and responsibility for the teacher, which is the exact thing the union driven eduction establishment is trying to avoid. I look at all the homework assignments my children have, and the majority are designed in this fashion; shift responsiblity from the teacher to the parent.
My cynacism of the system may have jaded me, but it just seems hopeless; you can organize the school anyway you want, call it a charter or whatever, but it's still the same union teacher attitude.
You, me, and about 30 or 40 million Amercians recognize this implicitly. Teachers don't and the union doesn't care, it's only concern is for the benefit of the membership. It's a national disgrace.
>> It's a national disgrace.<<