I actually think there’s a grain of truth in that characterization, in that the deficiencies of urban district schools are often exaggerated; “urban schools are failing” has become a meme that’s taken for granted rather than an assertion that’s subject to rational scrutiny. But certainly no school is perfect, and some schools are unacceptably far from perfect, and parents who are facing sending their kid to a school like that are understandably interested in seeing what other choices they have. But my view is that charters are being used as a way to evade the problem of bad schools rather than to address it–and the reason this option is so attractive to city governments and business leaders is precisely the union-busting aspect, the prize in the crackerjack box so to speak.</p>
<p>Oh, good grief. I asked you to reconsider your tone, that’s all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is a way to evade the problem of bad schools. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. From the parents who choose charters or privates to the city officials who get off the hook with the angriest parents by offering vouchers; it’s all to evade the intractable problem of failing schools.</p>
<p>Of course, the fatal flaw is that private and charter schools bounce their worse students back into the public school system. So, we are right back to having to face the problem. </p>
<p>I had not considered the union-busting aspect of it. Interesting.</p>
<p>And in the immortal words of Albert Shanker, long time head of the Teachers Union. . .
.</p>
<p>Unions are NEVER in place for the protection of a customer or service recipient. Unions are in place to protect their members. As such unions are very often at odds with what is best for the ‘end user’. In this case the end users are our children.</p>
<p>Shanker’s words, though doubtless taken out of context, are perfectly reasonable. Let’s reiterate: the teacher’s union exists to protect the interests of teachers, not students. Absolutely true and also absolutely appropriate.</p>
<p>People really need to grow up about this. Teachers are professionals, not saints or angels. Our children are their work, not their family. They should certainly be expected to take their work seriously and approach it with the commitment and energy its importance deserves. They should not be expected to sacrifice everything to it, to act as if it is more important to them than their own lives and families, or to gladly accept any demand made of them or any condition placed on them. (They may <em>have</em> to accept some of those demands and conditions, of course–that’s what negotiation is all about. It’s just that they should not be demonized for resisting or pushing back.)</p>
Xiggi - I will explain how it’s done in Pennsylvania.</p>
<p>A charter school send the bill to the childs home school district. The amount of the bill is equal to the districts per child cost. If it costs the district over $10,000 to educate each child (the number is arrived roughly at by dividing the total budget (expenditures) by the average daily attendance. This is total cost - infrastructure, supplies, staff etc.
About 80% of our budget is met through local real estate taxes.<br>
When a child leaves the classroom for a charter school, we pay for that child effect on the infrastructure even though the child is not there. If 12 children leave the public school for a charter school (one per grade) this costs our district (and taxpayers) $120,000 out of pocket. The school does not have a reduced cost of $120,000, however.</p>
<p>The only charter schools we have in our county are cyber charter schools. The cyber charter school gets $10,000 per child to educuate that child in front of a computer in their home.</p>
<p>Pug, for starters I asked you to review the TOS for ad hominem because I wanted you to appreciate the difference between personal attacks and spirited disagreements within the context of a discussion. The manner in which you “asked” me to reconsider my tone is an ad hominem attack. None of my posts in this thread are!</p>
<p>Obviously, we do not agree on several issues regarding the direction of education in our country. You and I are both entitled to our opinions on this. If we are also entitled to our own sets of facts is another issue. </p>
<p>For the record, I wonder if you really know my opinion (or claims) about charter and private schools you decided to also label as “simplistic.” In fact, if they were indeed simplistic, you would not have the slightest problem in paraphrasing my “claims.” </p>
<p>So, may I ask you to point to the “claims” you found simplistic, and, perhaps explain why you found my tone to be insuting. </p>
<p>And since I doubt you will take the time to do this, may I ask you a very simple question? Do you think I THINK charter schools represent a solution, and do you think I support them?</p>
<p>Well, then, let’s get rid of magnet programs, paid for by tax dollars, where spots go to kids whose parents are savvy enough to work the system and to fill out an application. Let’s get rid of gifted programs which definitely cherry-pick the brightest students. Let’s get rid of all Permit programs that allow parents who are clever enough to get their kids into a neighboring school district that has better schools. Let’s not let parents send their kids to the neighborhood school because that is a form of choosing and cherry-picking – the richer parents all live in the same area and create a school with more parent support, safer neighborhoods and fewer of the problems that plague inner-city schools.</p>
<p>mimk6, I am interested in knowing more about the schools that “went charter”. Were they previously in Corrective Action under NCLB and failed to make AYP for five years? (easy to do for a school that HAS subgroups - this law “favors” schools that are NOT diverse and do not have subgroups). Was there a state Board of Control before the schools went charter?
Or, does your state allow existing public schools to go charter without this?</p>
<p>This is all very intriguing and wouldn’t it be great if we had some real economists, statisticians or epidemiologists to get rid of or at least disclose the artifact and really study student achievement in a meaningful way?</p>
<p>Levrim, no the schools were not in corrective action. The first high school in our district to go charter (I think it was the first but it’s possible it was the second) was a very successful high school, maybe the most successful high school in the district, which made the district very invested in not letting it go. At that time, in our district, school after school was being put on a year-round calendar for overcrowding and this high school was past due to go year-round and they knew it and they didn’t want it and this was their solution because charters control their own calendar. </p>
<p>This school had an a number of advantages. Most of the parents at that school had bought homes to be in that area and they were invested, they had a dynamic Ivy-League grad principal who really was willing to step completely outside the box, they had one parent in particular with media connections and with tremendous savvy. There were some other dynamics at play as well. Anyhow, they got over half the faculty to sign a petition to the Board of Education as well as a larger percentage of parents and they aggressively approached the board about this. The board of education responded by telling them there would be a huge facility fees, etc. trying to dissuade them. They were not dissuaded. Honestly the final hours of that battle could be a Made for TV movie. I remember actually watching the board of ed meeting when the vote was taken. It was incredibly exciting to see them get their first charter, which has since been renewed.</p>
<p>In college, my daughter took a class on Education in America and wrote a paper about the events of that school going charter versus the events of a school ten miles away in the same district that fought going year-round and lost. She wrote about the differences in those schools and the perfect storm of people and events that existed that helped make it happen. After it happened, though, it was like a dam had broken and, since then, other schools have gone charter. None of the schools I am thinking of were in Corrective Action, although it’s possible that there have been some in Program Improvement for a couple of years. I’m not sure about the rest of the state, but our school district, the largest in the state, does allow schools to go charter now.</p>
<p>Yesterday I wrote about a successful school that went charter. Then my memory kicked in and I remembered about the first public school in the country that converted to charter in 1993. That was a failing school. I’m providing the link that gives some information about the school. I’ve read a lot about this school over the years. One thing to remember, as “failing” schools convert to charters, the student population doesn’t change right away – they start with the same students – so it eliminates the whole factor of selection of students in terms of what changes. A couple of years ago, LAUSD gave its toughest high school over to Green Dot. So both successful and unsuccessful schools have been allowed to go charter.</p>
<p>Thanks, mimk6, for the information. This is all very interesting. It’s incredible that half of the faculty of the first school that you mentioned voted to leave the union and go charter.
To clarify, some of our schools that do not make AYP are not really “failing”. It is very difficult to get every subgroup to make progress every year, and a school can fail to meet AYP for this. If a school offers special services, for example, for special needs students so it has a large number of these students, this school is disadvantaged in terms of trying to make AYP. There are a lot of disincentives to diversity and inclusiveness in this law!</p>
<p>Yes, my son’s high school is a Program Improvement School and also ranked in the Top 100 of Newsweek’s Best High Schools in America. Of course, we can criticize to death Newsweek’s system of ranking, but some things are working very well at our school, others not so well.</p>
<p>mimk6 - thanks for posting about your son’s school. It really does sound fantastic.<br>
Maybe LA does not have this problem but what happens if the school is full? Where do those kids attend school?</p>
<p>This is a great discussion. I read through the first few pages, and then decided to jump in…so if I’m being redundant, forgive me.</p>
<p>In post #23, pugmadkate made a comment that struck me as critical to the solution: in some countries, the top 1/3 of college students are the teachers. Why are our teachers often (please don’t attack me) the other 2/3 of students? Maybe if teaching were as vaunted a profession as say, lawyer or rap star, kids would look to this as a goal.</p>
<p>I know, I know, compensation is what separates the big dogs. But what about perception? Maybe there is a way to make teaching more aspirational to our kids, that’s all.</p>