<p>I think that KIPP schools are a good example of the complexity of charter schools. They are overall very successful schools, however the highest drop-out rates are among the students that come in with the lowest scores. Public school systems, be it neighborhood or charter, cannot work for only some students and be declared a success. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly not “generations.” I think the beauty of charter school is that they can be opened quickly and they should be closed just as quickly if they are failing. Unfortunately, for too many reformers, charter schools have become the flip side of the union coin. People are clinging to both concepts for dear life instead of asking “is it working?” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what I wrote,
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t see it. I simply read the entire article that you posted and I’ve read other articles that state the same. </p>
<p>Charter schools are not the enemy, unions are not the enemy, there is no one thing that is the enemy. This problem is complex and the only acceptable solutions is to focus in on what works. Not what works for some students, but for all students because all children have a right to a free and appropriate education.</p>
<p>I think you summed up an important issue concerning charters schools. The same autonomy that has allowed some charters to succeed has allowed too many charters to fail and continue to fail. That the charter school movement itself is moving towards more accountability is such a positive step and, of course, it’s being driven by the successful charter schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some charter schools do cherry pick their students in that the screening process to even get in the lottery rules out some students. The KIPP schools mentioned above do this (or at least they did the last time I read about them.) It’s great to mandate parental participation but that also automatically excludes children from dysfunctional families; the children who need the most help are not even in the lottery.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not agree with this idea. Every child is entitled to an appropriate education. It’s not okay that the school up the street is succeeding but the one down the street is failing. These are not businesses. Choice is good and children deserve an assortment of good choices, all children, not just the ones with involved parents.</p>
<p>Part of the article in New York magazine addresses this very real problem. Countries that are leaders in education recruit teachers from the top 1/3 of college students. Guess where most of our teachers rank in their college classes? They do it, in part, with a national attitude of respect towards teachers and, again, higher salaries. </p>
<p>Wis75, You raise a lot of excellent points. The sheer complexity of providing a quality education for all students, not some but all, is daunting.</p>
<p>Early College High Schools seem to be very successful in North Carolina. Kids graduated this year and college acceptances were good. Our experience was very good. They are not for everyone, but from what I saw on Oprah the movie makes the point that there is not one solution to the problem. Students go to high school on a community college campus, taking some core high school classes taught by HS teachers, and taking the rest of their classes at the Community College and receiving an Associate Transfer degree. No football team, etc., but small classes and about 100 students per grade, so lots of bonding, personal attention and accountability. Very dedicated high school staff. They apply to college as freshman, but often start with 65 hours of college credit and are juniors academically. Very new, so no real statistics on how they do in college, but most of the students are first generation college, often financially disadvantaged, etc. Not all, but most. </p>
<p>Private schools are just now trying to figure out how to view these kids, but in NC if they are accepted by a public university then all their credits must be accepted by law. Also, if they graduate with the associates degree they are guaranteed a spot in one of the public schools. Not UNC-CH mind you, just one of the 16 UNC campuses. </p>
<p>I forgot to mention these are public schools, no fees, and the kids graduate with both degrees in four or five years. Many in four. A free - including text books - two years of college - all the math, history, english, foreign language core classes behind them - is huge for some families.</p>
<p>I know these are not the subject of the movie, but I am interested in seeing what other solutions are presented</p>
<p>The “dirty little secret” of teacher compensation is not their salaries, but the benefits. If you factor in the value of the benefits which the teachers receive, the amount of their compensation goes up by at least 50%. One of the provisions of Obamacare provides for a tax on “cadillac” health plans, but union members are excluded from the tax because most unions members enjoy these “cadillac” health plans.</p>
<p>In my state, a teacher can retire after 40 years of service and receive 100% of their final salary with COLA and health benefits. After 30 years, they only receive 75%, but then they are retiring in their mid-50s. One trick that the union worked out was to allow teachers to “retire” after 30 years and then get rehired as part-time teachers for 50% of their final salary, thereby costing the school district 125% of their salary to get a teacher who worked part-time.</p>
<p>If you want to see an interesting take on teachers unions and their effect on education, google Governor Christie of New Jersey and his “frank” assessment of where the fault lies.</p>
<p>I agree that it is not okay for any school to be failing. However, parents don’t have the luxury of waiting for the school down the street to improve. They need choices now. Kids can’t wait. I am not suggesting that bad schools not improve, but I think choices should exist. And every charter school is not for every kid, nor is every private school, etc. My daughter’s school is terrific, but that doesn’t make it the right school for every student. Some kids need a school whose focus is on closing the achievement gap, some kids need a school that is geared towards gifted children, some kids need a school that has a specific style of teaching, etc. </p>
<p>I do think schools are businesses and need to operate as businesses. They have budgets, they have difficult business decisions to make. They hire, they move people around, etc. Many charter schools are operating on a business model where they have to demonstrate they are delivering a product. Divorcing education from a business model has allowed people to believe they are not responsible for delivering a quality product/service. In what other field is that acceptable? </p>
<p>Many of the charter schools in our area do not cherry pick at all. Asking for parental involvement may exclude some families, but I’m not sure it’s a bad thing to tell parents that they are expected to get involved in their kids’ education.</p>
<p>ARGGHHHHH! Sorry; my school is trying to move more towards a business model, and our educating kids is going down the tubes. RE: KIPP - they are great schools and extended hours, summer school, etc is great, but I agree with Pugmadkate. At my school every year, a few of our top students transfer to the magnet or charter schools. They are the ones with supportive parents who will make sure they attend school regularly, do their homework, eat and brush teeth before school. They have parents who are “together” enough to take the initiative to apply to a charter school and arrange transportation. The population of kids who apply to charters and get accepted are not the same as those who don’t apply, even if the demographics are the same. Parental support makes all the difference. A third of my kindergartners come to school every morning WITHOUT HAVING BRUSHED THEIR TEETH OR EATEN ANY BREAKFAST. This is in spite of the fact that FREE breakfast is available to every child - provided they arrive on time before 7:30. I had a dad bring his kid and kid’s cousin to school late at yesterday at 9:00 a.m. When I asked if they had had breakfast, his answer was “No problem. They be alright.” I asked again, and the answer was “Nah, but they be alright.”<br>
And just an FYI, Xiggi, on PBS newshour tonight they interviewed a Vanderbilt researcher who was examining the impact of “pay for performance” on teacher and student achievement. He didn’t find any.</p>
<p>^^
Why is it misguided? This goes to the whole current debate of value-added evaluation of teachers as part of assessing teacher competence. There isn’t enough assessment, there isn’t enough teacher observation, there isn’t enough emphasis on “Are we doing what we are supposed to be doing? Are kids graduating? Are they prepared to go into the world? If not, why not? What do we need to do differently?” </p>
<p>I am not suggesting that individual classrooms operate as businesses. I’m suggesting that schools have real goals and that they evaluate if they are meeting those goals. How can that be misguided? Businesses have goals whether it’s to bring in customers, sell a product for a profit, provide quality health care, etc. Why should schools be different? Shouldn’t they have goals in mind? Shouldn’t there be some kind of mission statement that everyone is on board with? Shouldn’t schools look at data and figure out a plan to get them from where they are to where they want to be? That’s what I mean by a business model and I don’t think there is anything misguided about it.</p>
<p>First of all, schools are not businesses and can’t be operated as businesses. Here’s why: a fundamental premise of business is that some businesses fail, and that this is an acceptable, inevitable and perhaps even desirable thing. Schools are permanent community institutions. They can’t be allowed to fail. They have to be supported–not blindly, but not provisionally either. They require commitment from their communities. It’s the lack of this commitment, not a lack of choice or competition, that’s the problem.</p>
<p>Secondly, while I agree that charter schools do not, as a rule, “cherry-pick their students,” nonetheless the student bodies of charter schools are often <em>de facto</em> cherry-picked because attending a charter school usually requires some action on the part of the parent. Sadly, in many districts the parents who have the initiative and bureaucratic savvy to take the steps necessary to get their kid into a charter school are in the minority. This means that charter schools are, by definition, populated by the kids with the most informed, involved parents. Surprise! They do better. Gee! It must be because they’re run better and have more dedicated teachers. :rolleyes: </p>
<p>I admit, I’m not the least bit objective about this. I am the son of public school teachers, and the relentless, knee-jerk teacher-bashing and union-bashing in the so-called “school reform” movement makes me sick to my stomach. I’m not saying teachers’ unions are perfect or blameless, but they are under siege, and behaving the way people and organizations under siege can always be expected to behave. Real solutions will start when we admit that (1) schools can only be as good as the respect and energy their communities put into them; (2) teachers are professionals, not saints; expecting them to put our children’s interests above everything else, and to accept any demands we place on them in the name of “dedication,” is foolish at best and unjust at worst.</p>
<p>I will grant that kids in charter schools had someone apply for them to get there. That said, many of the kids in my daughter’s class have very, very serious problems and very, very difficult life circumstances. I’m not comfortable going into detail. It’s not a contest.</p>
<p>But many have been allowed to fail. For years. It sounds nice to say we can’t think about schools failing, but many are failing. Failing schools should be closed or taken over by different management which is what my city is actually trying to do now. But saying we can’t think about schools as a business, because we would be admitting the possibility of failure, gives us no framework to deal with the reality of failing schools.</p>
<p>Schools cannot be operated as a business because they don’t make any profit or produce a product. If I work for a company and I am being effective, I will increase the profit of my company. I can’t do this in education. If I do a better job at educating students, the amount of money coming into the district remains the same. I can’t go out looking for better resources from which to make my product. I have to deal with what is sent me. In many small districts, there is no competition. The community school is the only game in town. </p>
<p>My friends who work in for-profit business can measure their success by an increase in their business, and an increase in profits. When this happens, they get a bonus. I get paid the same no matter what my results. You can talk about performance pay, but where does that money come from? Our local tax payers are not going to pay more. The state is already strapped. There isn’t going to be money coming from the feds on a large scale. Schools are not for-profit businesses. They have set budget that they must work from that usually only seems to decrease, not increase, regardless of results.</p>
<p>Race to Nowhere: The Dark Side of America’s Achievement Culture
Release Date: 9/17/2010</p>
<p>Director Vicki Abeles’ new documentary is about the pressures faced by American schoolchildren and their teachers in a system and culture she describes as obsessed with the illusion of achievement, competition and the pressure to perform.</p>
<p>The Lottery
Madeleine Sackler’s film The Lottery endeavors to uncover the failures of the traditional public school system by following four families from Harlem and the Bronx who have entered their children in a charter school lottery.</p>
<p>The Cartel
The Cartel shows us our educational system like we’ve never seen it before. Balancing local storylines against interviews with education experts, The Cartel explores what dedicated parents, committed teachers, clear-eyed officials, and tireless reformers are doing to make our schools better for our kids. </p>
<p>Time magazine has an issue out now about education. One point that no one seems to make is that the job market has changed drastically. For most Baby Boomers, our teachers were the very brightest women in America. Today, young women can do anything and the brightest people, generally speaking, are not becoming teachers. </p>
<p>The Time article did talk about how most of our teachers come from the bottom third of their graduating classes while in other countries (Japan I think was mentioned) 100 percent of their teachers are in the top third of their classes. It makes a difference.</p>
<p>There are many not-for-profit businesses. When I worked at a not-for-profit counseling agency, it ran on a business model and there was no product per se. There are many, many public agencies where the amount of money coming in doesn’t change and yet we expect those agencies to run like a business. I think schools can measure success in many tangible ways – graduation rates, waiting lists to get into the school (magnet programs, charters and private schools have these), test scores, word of mouth in the community, teacher retention rate, etc.</p>
<p>In my little view of the world, it seems like we have students who are coming to school with different needs. Some of the kids would perform better and behave better if they could opt for a no-frills program much like alternative schools offer. Attend core classes half a day, and go to jobs or vocational training the other half. No extracurriculars, no assemblies, nothing but classes leading to graduation or GED. In our school, only dropouts or troublemakers are offered this option.</p>
<p>I am curious if the students at the underperforming schools which are being reformed are the same students when the school is successful.</p>
<p>Example- our district has a STEM school which is opening in an underperforming/attended high school this fall.(without demand from the neighborhood/community)
1:1 laptops, $800,000 on top of what other schools receive, calculus for all…
If teachers don’t buy into the spiel they are encouraged to transfer, and this is at a school that couldnt support any AP classes.
The struggling students are more likely to drop out or attend elsewhere, than they are to stay at a school which is intended to attract top students.
But the district will be able to say " we turned the school around". But did they? Really?</p>
<p>Your daughter should consider herself lucky that her charter school parents even have phones. How would she like to work in a school where half have no phones? Or a school where we have to have free clothing give-aways to get parents to attend a conference with their child’s teacher? Even then, less than 20% show up.</p>
<p>So much of this discussion is so simplistic. Teachers and their unions are just one facet of a fantastically complex situation. Don’t get me wrong. I have come across bad teachers who should have been fired. But even if 100% of the nation’s public school teachers were impeccable in their job performance we would still have underperforming schools and students. </p>
<p>My son attends a charter that got $1million from Oprah yesterday. This school, which by its charter is 2/3rds minority kids from poor neighborhoods, has a 100% 4-year college acceptance rate. From what I’ve observed here is why the school works: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The school DOES have higher standards than our public schools: anything lower than a C is not passing. Summer school is mandatory if you don’t pass. If you don’t pass more than 2 courses you must repeat the year. </p></li>
<li><p>This school has phenomenal support for students: tutoring/counseling/mentoring of all sorts. This extra support is available to ALL THE KIDS… because this school only has 100 students PER GRADE. Imagine, a high school of 400 kids: if all public schools were this small they would be able to meet the needs of all their students just like this charter does. </p></li>
<li><p>The curriculum is traditional, none of this new-math/whole reading nonsense. Far fewer electives, far fewer sports, than in most schools. Each student must also complete a mandatory internship, a stint as a volunteer and a summer college program. In other words, less “fun” (much to my kids’ and somewhat to my chagrin) more solid education and character development. </p></li>
<li><p>The school is “rich.” Besides Oprah’s $1 million (thanks, Oprah!) it’s gotten at least one prior million dollar donation. It’s extremely well connected - and supported by - local and state politicians, state industry giants, as well as the Melinda Gates foundation. These connections and support mean that the school started a middle school which funnels into it already disciplined, academically well prepared children. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This is a charter that works because it’s well thought out, consistent in its goals and well supported financially. Not all charters are like that - I dare say few are. I’ve seen charters where the teachers are a notch above amateurs, where the curriculum is a joke,
where there is constant conflict between the teachers, the parents, the administration and the district. </p>
<p>There is no one answer to the complex problems facing our public schools. Attacking teacher unions – or glorifying charters is not the answer either.</p>