<p>On average charter schools do no better than public schools. Some are better some are worse. We've got pretty good public schools in our county despite a very strong teacher's union. Perhaps the secret is intact households, relatively high incomes and parents who are also educated?</p>
<p>The two schools were indeed public schools. They had different curricula and pedagogies and attracted totally different student populations.
It is unclear exactly what was wrong with the underchosen school. It had a very good, dynamic principal; the teachers were equal in quality and dedication to the ones in the overchosen school and the two groups got along well. Over the years, some of the differences in curricula and pedagogies became blurred; and yet, the underchosen school continued to attract different students and to underperform.
2. the problem with expanding overchosen school is that size is an important component of a school's success. Let's say that Harvard would cease to be Harvard if it doubled in size. The Gates foundation is pushing for small schools. The problem with implementing this laudable agenda in NYC has been that in order to create small schools, some schools have double or even tripled in size.</p>
<p>Marite, the national record on charter schools is mixed, for sure. I do think we need to be vigilant about studying what works and what doesn't. Every state has different rules; in mine, only two cities can establish charters, and they must be "overseen" by certain kinds of organizations, for example, universities. Unfortunately, some of the sponsoring groups, or individuals, see their role as something to put on a resume, while giving very little oversight or helpful critiques. The geographical limitations, imposed by the very same school districts that are failing, prevent easy involvement by researchers at the flagship university, a few hours away, although there are many who would love to be involved. Just one of many ways the charters are being sabotaged by the schools with which they compete. I know it's not that simple, and cultural factors are crucial, but these attempts to reform a failing system really need broad support to work.</p>
<p>
If you've ever read de Tocqueville, you'll know that there is a strong, anti-intellectual strain in the US. It has not left us. There are parts of this country where success in school is so strongly, socially discouraged that it's a wonder that any child escapes these places to graduate from college. A few do, and more power to them. But most end up doing manual labor, small-town clerk jobs, beauty shop work, and the like. A few become mechanics and plumbers and welders and do OK for themselves. Then their children go through the same cycle of negative social status for success in school.
And after reading Thomas Sowell, I agree that America has in the past and will likely continue to have a segment of society that minimizes the value of education for cultural reasons.</p>
<p>On the other hand, as this article concludes, maybe Americans are addicted to practical learning rather than abstract knowledge:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why We (American) Dummies Succeed</p>
<p>]n trying to explain the riddle, let me offer a distinction between the U.S. school system and the American learning system .</p>
<p>The school system is what most people think of as "education." It consists of 125,000 elementary and high schools and 2,500 four-year colleges and universities. It has strengths (major research universities) and weaknesses -- notably, lax standards. One reason that U.S. students rank low globally is that many don't work hard. In 2002, 56 percent of high school sophomores did less than an hour of homework a night.</p>
<p>The American learning system is more complex. It's mostly post-high school and, aside from traditional colleges and universities, includes the following: community colleges; for-profit institutes and colleges; adult extension courses; online and computer-based courses; formal and informal job training; self-help books. To take a well-known example: The for-profit University of Phoenix started in 1976 to offer workers a chance to finish their college degrees. Now it has about 300,000 students (half taking online courses and half attending classes in 163 U.S. locations). The average starting age: 34.</p>
<p>The American learning system has, I think, two big virtues.</p>
<p>First, it provides second chances. It tries to teach people when they're motivated to learn -- which isn't always when they're in high school or starting college. People become motivated later for many reasons, including maturity, marriage, mortgages and crummy jobs. These people aren't shut out. They can mix work, school and training. A third of community college students are over 30. For those going to traditional colleges, there's huge flexibility to change and find a better fit. A fifth of those who start four-year colleges and get degrees finish at a different school, reports Clifford Adelman of the Education Department. Average completion time is five years; many take longer.</p>
<p>Second, it's job-oriented. Community colleges provide training for local firms and offer courses to satisfy market needs. Degrees in geographic information systems (the use of global positioning satellites) are new. There's been an explosion in master's degrees -- most of them work-oriented. From 1971 to 2004, MBAs are up 426 percent, public administration degrees, 262 percent, and health degrees, 743 percent. About a quarter of college graduates now get a master's. Many self-help books are for work -- say, "Excel for Dummies." There are about 150 million copies of the "For Dummies" series in print.</p>
<p>Up to a point, you can complain that this system is hugely wasteful. We're often teaching kids in college what they should have learned in high school -- and in graduate school what they might have learned in college. Some of the enthusiasm for more degrees is crass credentialism. Some trade schools prey cynically on students' hopes and spawn disappointment. But these legitimate objections miss the larger point: The American learning system accommodates people's ambitions and energies -- when they emerge -- and helps compensate for some of the defects of the school system.</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>Midmo:</p>
<p>In the case of the overchosen, underchosen and charter schools that I know, the key difference was not the schools themselves but the student populations and the level of involvement of parents. The two schools that occupied the same building were located in a low income part of town. The underchosen school was chosen mostly by local families; many of these were immigrants. They preferred a traditional pedagogy and a lot of emphasis on discipline. They also saw education as the nearly sole task of the teachers; they did not have much involvement in the school. A key meeting that was to discuss whether to merge with the overchosen school or stay separate attracted only two parents.
The overchosen school attracted middle class families who did not mind having their kids bussed in order to attend the school. They liked the combined system, the curriculum, and the collaborative learning style. They were very involved in school affairs. A similar meeting to the one I mentioned earlier attracted an overflow attendance.
Over the years, the grade structures of the two schools began to resemble each other more; the bad teachers at the underchosen school were replaced by better one when a new, dynamic principal was named (and the overchosen school weathered the tenure of a bad principal). But the performance of the two students at the two schools continued to be very different.
The charter school was started by parents who felt their kids were falling between the cracks of the public school system. But once it was launched, the parents did not stay involved in the school, and the school, being overwhelming minority, did not attract many middle class families (the middle class minoirty families stayed in the public schools).
Some years ago, the overchosen school was asked to move and to absorb the population of a failing school. The failing school was located in a poor part of town with a high proportion of immigrants (why the two schools occupying the same building were not asked to merge is a mystery to all). This actually amounted to a merger since the size of the student populations were similar.
As a result, of the merger, the overchosen schools' size doubled.
All of the teachers and most of the families stayed with the school even though it was now located in a less convenient part of town. In the closed down school, the better teachers were retained, and new ones were hired to replace those that were let go. A huge effort to train the teachers in the overchosen school's curriculum and pedagogy was made throughout the summer. It's been a long, hard struggle. The school has become less desirable for new families, and its performance has dropped. </p>
<p>In all the cases, as in the case of other public schools in the district, the key difference is not in the teachers but in the students they serve.</p>
<p>DRJ4: very interesting article from the Washington Post. The free market at work. </p>
<p>Marite: what a mess. But if we accept that all of the problems are rooted in the families and their particular cultures, the problems appear unsolvable. We have many immigrant families in this town from all over the world, and most do participate in their children's schooling, but this is a college town and the immigrants are well educated, and in fact most are here because of education. I have no solutions to suggest, except to free the school systems from artificial constraints that serve the purposes of school employees first, kids last.</p>
<p>Ah. Single factor analysis raises its ugly head.</p>
<p>This is the parable of the two sawmill managers. Larry managed a sawmill in Washington State and Bob managed one in southern Alabama. Larry did a great job, turning out top grade plywood, 98% #2 board, and the like. His mill was extremely profitable both because of it high grade lumber and the fact that he kept costs to a minimum. </p>
<p>Bob was another story, altogether. Bob's #2 board percentage was less than 50%, and he managed to turn out only the lowest grade plywood. His costs were sky high compared to Larry's, and his mill was barely profitable.</p>
<p>Management had a covocation one day, and the decision was made to "bring in the A team" to Alabama. They fired Bob and transferred Larry. Larry would make the Alabama mill much more profitable. So management did that, and saw that it was good.</p>
<p>Within 6 months after Larry arrived in Alabama, the saw mill had dipped into the red, quality was down, and costs were up even more than they had been under Bob. So, management sent a team of middle managers to investigate. Within two days, the team was back and reporting.</p>
<p>"The Alabama operation is trying to make good lumber out of a mix of fourth-growth hardwood and softwood," said the middle manager team leader. "Frankly, most of that stuff is good only for making chips for the pulp mills. Costs are high because the managers there keep investing in high-grade, automated equipment to maximize the lumber that can be made from such sorry raw material. In the Northwest, that equipment isn't necessary.</p>
<p>"In conclusion, there's just no way that Alabama mill will ever be as profitable as the Northwest one so long as the Northwest one is logging first-growth Douglas fir and the Alabama one is logging limbs."</p>
<p>Management thanked the team profusely. When the team left, management considered what to do. It decided to bring in the A team, so it fired Larry and transferred a successful manager from Idaho to Alabama.</p>
<p>And management looked on its action, and saw that it was good.</p>
<p>midmo said:</p>
<p>"I have no solutions to suggest, except to free the school systems from artificial constraints that serve the purposes of school employees first, kids last."</p>
<p>Midmo, this reminds me of the guy who was looking for his house key at night. A neighbor came upon him searching under a streetlight and asked him what he was doing. The man told him, and the neighbor joined in the search. After about a half hour without finding the key, the neighbor asked the man exactly where he was standing when he lost it. The man pointed to his darkened doorstep some 50 yards away. The neighbor, indignantly, demanded to know why they were wasting time looking for a key 50 yards away from where it was lost. "Because there's light over here," the man replied.</p>
<p>I seem to be in a funny sort of parable mood today. Wonder what that means?</p>
<p>midmo:</p>
<p>You do not get my point. The school employees did not put their own interest first. In fact, the families were scared that they would leave for easier assignments in some suburban district. they chose not to do so and spent the summer packing for the big move, then unpacking and training teachers in the curriculum and pedagogy. Families pitched in, too. The merged school is doing better than the old underperforming school but not as well as when it was small and overchosen. The old families have stayed loyal, but it remains to be seen if new families--the middle class ones it used to attract and are necessary to make the school successful--will want to choose it. If they do not, then it will become one of the underperforming schools despite the best efforts of the teachers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some years ago, the overchosen school was asked to move and to absorb the population of a failing school. The failing school was located in a poor part of town with a high proportion of immigrants (why the two schools occupying the same building were not asked to merge is a mystery to all).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Marite, I'm not sure this is what Midmo was referring to, but it's what jumps out at me. This school board decision to move rather than merge the two schools in the building appears not to favor the children. Perhaps it was just random bad management. But perhaps it served the political purposes of school board members.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, I love the sawmill parable, with its cool understated kicker.</p>
<p>Celloguy:</p>
<p>Actually, the mystery is not that great, though it did reflect a failure of nerves on the part of the school board.
There's lot of history behind the non-merger of the two schools in one building. While the teachers and principals worked together well, there was quite a bit of hostility among the families. The School Board decided to avoid antagonizing the families by not forcing a merger between the two schools. The underchosen school, though underperforming, was not in as dire straits as the one which the overchosen school was asked to absorb. Technically the third school was closed down. But the size of its population was as large as that of the overchosen school, so it feels more like a merger of students if not of curricula. What I am trying to suggest is that with wonderful teachers and a great curriculum, there is only so much that can be achieved. By the way, that move was undertaken after my kid graduated from the school, so I hear about things second hand. I understand that the families at the school to which ours moved blinked at the level of involvement of the parents. </p>
<p>The old building is now occupied by the underchosen school plus another school that is very different from the earlier overchosen school but is also successful at attracting middle class parents. That school performs better than the underchosen school.</p>