Today's Lesson: Charter Schools Work

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.

It doesn't matter becasue charter schools still use the same teacher pool, which IMHO is the problem with eduction. It's the wierd, unsubstantialte, fad ideas, combined with the us vs. them mentality of the teachers union that have wreaked havoc on public education.

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.

>>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!

It doesn't matter becasue charter schools still use the same teacher pool, which IMHO is the problem with eduction.

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

Oh, I agree with the charter school concept, and also agree with the idea that it's an improvement. One of my kids goes to a charter and one doesn't. They both are in good schools though. The worst school in Boise, ID is probably better than the best public school in, say, Detroit.

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.

>>shift responsibility from the teacher to the parent.<<

I have to agree with you there. It is one of the main reasons why I pulled my daughter out the other Charter school to homeschool.
My hubby believed that my girls could get a great education in a district school, all it took was supplementing their lessons at home.

I stated that what he was proposing was send her to school (where she would learn their agenda, you know) for six hours, still have her do the hour and a half of homework she was getting, then whatever we would supplement. By my calculations that would be about 10 hours a day. If I educated them at home, we work maybe 3. Why am I sending her???

"I stated that what he was proposing was send her to school (where she would learn their agenda, you know) for six hours, still have her do the hour and a half of homework she was getting, then whatever we would supplement. By my calculations that would be about 10 hours a day. If I educated them at home, we work maybe 3. Why am I sending her???"

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.