Good charters are few and far between but they do exist.

Neither system is perfect, but charter operators told us, the staff, why they love them so much: they can hire and fire whomever and whenever they like. We certainly felt insecure and afraid constantly.

Also, charters are run to make a profit. Principals are called CAOs. So, the education of our youth is only done to make a buck. Anything else is secondary, or they'd be public. If anyone is in favor of these, I recommend applying the logic of improvement to other public institutions, such as police and firefighters. Shall we have a profit motive there, too? What could possibly go wrong when your incentives are about the bottom line?

This is a topic I don't know nearly enough about, hence the OP.

Wouldn't the incentive be to do a good job providing this service so parents don't take their business to your competitors?

I'm not sure how this model would apply to police or firefighters. Sadly, I do see how it works for for-profit prisons; keep costs as low as possible by providing as little as possible to the inmates.

For the record, both my children attend public school. I was a product of public schools. My brother is a public school teacher and my mom is a retired public school teacher. I'm happy with the education they are currently receiving but if I weren't, I would certainly look at other options.

ever fails at customer service.



Business exist to make money, let's make our children into a profit steam.

instead of fixing what you don't like about your public institution, they want you to "shop". It's not surprising, considering the throw-away society we live in, but i like fixing things instead of just seeing a social institution as a product to be consumed.

My first charter school literally stole $4,000 of promised money from me and then took an administrative vacation in Vegas. I don't have proof that they used the money they promised to me for the trip, but they certainly had extra lying around. I did the work for that money all year and then they told me it wasn't available. Fuck charter schools.

automatically is a disadvantage if that is true. In my view it is similar to the republicans wanting to privitize the postal service. Both are mandated to serve the public

In that documentary, the charter schools they covered were based on a lottery system. Any kid in a certain district could apply for the charter school, and admission was random, subject only to capacity. The schools they showed were highly sought after, and the chances of any individual kid getting in were low. There were heartbreaking scenes where kids were at the lottery drawing finding out they wouldn't get into the charter school and had to go back to the underperforming public schools.


But that's from a pro-charter school documentary, so I don't know how it generally works.

but even those which do are able to expel kids way easier that public schools and can force them to leave even without expelling them.

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

students with a lottery system to determine who gets accepted, public schools can't do that, and have to serve all students in a district, which implies funding for charter schools would take money away from public schools which would then need to accommodate larger class size with less money?

Charter schools are independent, public schools aren't they?

One thing I am against is the push by republicans mostly to use public school funds for private schools, and that I am against in all forms

I don't know.

And, yes, I'm definitely against the push by Republicans to use public school funds for private schools, and it feels kind of like charter schools are a way to do this under the radar.

biggest differences between public and private.

It was a movie, though, so who knows.

isn't really a lottery. The admnistration of these schools were allowed access to records so they could determine who actually went into the lottery. And needs gets don't get in.

That's where a lot of public school money is spent. I doubt it, but even if they do, not many parents would send their kids to a school without the resources and trained staff necessary for them to be educated properly.

My SIL teaches for MPS and the charters there, and the private schools we looked into, don't take anyone who requires special instruction; ADD, ADHD, reading issues, whatever (I personally think charters are private). He's pissed about it all the time. The public schools always took everyone so there was a true mixed demographic of learners. Now the public schools are lopsided with behavior problems, etc. and he says it's becoming overwhelming.

His other main beef is the attitude of parents now that charters are everywhere. He said the teacher is ALWAYS wrong in this atmosphere. If he has to say anything negative to a parent, too often the reaction is that the teacher is the enemy and they can yank their kid out and put them in a charter if the teacher doesn't like what little Suzy is doing.

BTW: My SIL teaches 2nd grade. He is the sweetest, calmest most patient person imaginable. He would offer criticism as a last resort, so for him to be as upset as he is, is quite telling. He just applied for a different job after teaching for 17 years. He has never done that before so I'm thinking he may just leave.

However, I live and work in a "right to work" state, so union power is very limited.

Since charter schools and the push to "fill in the right bubbles" have come on the scene, I have only seen the quality of my students get worse and worse.

I have students in my classes who cannot write in coherent sentences, much less paragraphs.

I have students come in to my classes who do not understand the difference between a photograph and a painting.

I had a student just the other day write in a paper that Thomas Jefferson built the Lincoln Memorial.

I think critical thinking and actual skill development have been dumped in favor of teaching kids how to score on standardized tests.

Basically, I have "college students" who are incapable of doing grade school work.

It's extremely troubling.

My instinct is to oppose the standardized testing mindset. "Teaching to the test" seems way to big of a risk. I don't have a better idea about how to evaluate teachers and schools but there has to be one.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about the education system. I went to public schools, which were great, but I grew up in an affluent suburb.

I have no kids, and what I know comes just from reading just a few articles. And from season 4 of "The Wire". Which was great, BTW, but obviously not something to base serious opinions on.

and standardized testing. At this point, colleges accept pretty much anyone who can scrape together the $$$$$ to attend, regardless of whether they are college material or not. There was a time when remedial comp and reading classes were not needed on college campuses. No longer.

For probably the last 20 or 30 years we have told kids that everyone needs a college education, which is not true. There is a place for vocational education in this world. Many entrepreneurs aren't college graduates. There are people who are good with their hands and not so good with book stuff.

Not having a college degree should not be a barrier to success for those people, and most of them probably end up frustrated and dropping out with nothing to show for their college educations except a whole lot of debt.

It must be frustrating to you and others like you who want to teach college level courses, but have to adapt your curriculum to your students who were not prepared.

We're going through the college entry phase now and it's not easy. My kids are in an excellent public school system, taking all honors and AP classes. Getting into the best schools they can get into is high stress.

Unfortunatley, kids do need a college education today in order to do better in life. Does it guarantee "better"? No. Can they do well without it? Some can. But the chances are better for doing better with it.

I think the Professor is right. Charter schools are all about standardized testing and profit. Not about education and critical thinking. And certainly not about creative thinking.

Why would a plumber need a college degree? An electrician? A truck driver? An auto mechanic? Does a longshoreman or a welder need to be saddled with student loan debts? For what purpose?

Back in the 80s, my high school had an excellent vocational tech satellite school. Guidance counselors identified kids who weren't really college material and pointed them in this direction. Yes, these were usually the class-ditchers, the long-haired pot smokers who wore Ozzy shirts. Many of them went on to successful (and lucrative) careers in tech fields.

Sure, they weren't glamorous jobs. They also weren't jobs that were later off-shored or NAFTA'd. A kid graduating high school with an electrician's license could be running his own crew and making 6 figures by the time he was 30.

Sadly, my high school (and many others) would abandon the vo-tech programs, subscribing to the belief that every kid needs college. In reality, for many kids, college is a waste of time and a huge waste of money.

If a person chooses vocational school over college, that's wonderful. As long as they have a skill and get training in something.

I never finished college and became a film editor. I did quite well in life.

I guess my point is that some kind of further education is required after high school.

Thank you for correcting me.

I dropped out of college. I was one of those kids for whom college proved to be a waste of money. I wouldn't say it was a waste of time. I had a blast! Too much fun, I think.

So here I am, still paying off student loans for a degree I never earned. Managed to land on my feet in the military though, where I've done quite well.

I'm not even sure how we are going to pay for our kids' educations since we are still paying for my husband's.

I'm glad you are doing well. Your story of paying off debt for nothing is all too common. I left school with no debt, but I went to a small regional college back when it was still affordable.

Both graduated with honors from a small, highly-regarded liberal arts college.

The older went into science. He was in a PhD prgram, which ran out of funding when he was in his 6th year. He is now a full-time dad.

The younger got his BA in philosophy. He is now working for about $10 or $11/hour in a factory, but is planning to get an MBA. More debt.

Before he got the factory job, he tutored at a local community college. The students he tutored would probably have been better served in a sheltered workshop. Some had severe learning disabilities, or intellectual challenges that meant that they were totally lost in their college classes, and even with one-on-one help they just didn't get it.

I'm not talking about people who can get into "the best schools." Far from it.

Richard Feynmann headed up the computer department at Los Alamos during the building of the bomb. He was the guy who exposed NASA lying about the O-rings after the Challenger blew up.

He was invited to Brazil in the 1960s where he was surprised to discover Brazilian high school students using the same physics books not seen in the US until college. And they were scoring just as well as the American college students. This is where a politician stops paying attention and begins saying, "our schools are failing us."

But Feynmann also knew there were very few Brazilian physicists of note. "What was happening to them?"

To answer that question, Feynmann crafted a new test which he gave to Brazilian high schoolers, Brazilian college students and American college students. The Americans got pretty much the same score that they got on the standard exam. While the Brazilians, both in high school and college, scored much lower. Many just flat out refused to take them saying, "these aren't the problems we were taught".

In the United States we were teaching kids the underlying principals. This is much harder. But we saw it pan out as the United States dominated the world in innovation. In Brazil the teachers were hired or fired based on their students test scores. So they taught the students how to solve the problems that would be on the test. "Apply this formula to this problem. You don't need to know why because I don't have enough time. Just remember which formulas apply to which types of problems."

So you see, this isn't a theory. We have seen it in action comparing real life Brazilians and Americans. Standardized testing led to less capable students.

There is a place for vocational education in this world. yeah in china, singapore etc

Not having a college degree should not be a barrier to success for those people. yeah would u see a doctor without a college degree

so much wrong in so little a post

When your car needs repairs do you send it to China?? I don't. Fortunately, we have plenty of mechanics here, most of whom do not hold bachelor's degrees. They may have gone to a technical school to learn their craft, but a lot of them may have learned by working on their own cars. Same goes for plumers, carpenters, electricians, etc.

Also, I never said that no one needs a degree. Some professions require it, and generally those who go into those professions really can handle Comp 101 and basic math. Those who can't should have an alternative--like vocational ed or apprenticeships.

Yup, so much wrong in YOUR little ost.

(College professor here, not unionized, in a right to work for nuthin' state.)

The past two or three years in particular, we are seeing students who have even less in the way of analytical skills than before. Asking an open-ended question used to be a great way to start a class, but now it more often than not results in dead silence and careful avoidance of eye contact.

This is the first group to come through an entire twelve years of NCLB, and they have been taught that every question has a simple answer, which is either A, B, C, or D. Ambiguity makes them very uncomfortable.

And yes, teachers have always complained about their students, but now we are seeing something very different, and it is the result of being taught to the test.

And then there's the extreme fear of taking risks and making mistakes, another result of high-stakes testing. That's another subject for another discussion.

Charter schools do indeed suck money away from public schools, but they can also very easily receive private funds. They often do because rich conservatives and ill-informed "education reform supporters" throw money at them constantly.

Charter schools are allowed to kick students out for whatever reason they choose. What this means for my neighborhood public school is that we are constantly receiving new students throughout the year who haven't necessarily been taking the correct classes. This is disruptive for the transferred students as well as they classes they enter, as the student doesn't know what they are supposed to be doing and the class culture has already been set among the students who have been enrolled all year. Furthermore, this means that our class sizes expand dramatically over the course of a school year even though we receive no additional funding for these students. The charter schools get to hold on to any per-pupil funding they receive at the outset of the year. My school is currently very over-enrolled and is thus strapped for resources.

The union, while extant, is mostly powerless because our school district has developed teacher evaluation mechanisms that allow schools require all sorts of things of teachers outside of their contracts (and penalize them if they don't comply).

Individual teacher evaluation should be done by school administrators. A district should only be able to evaluate at the school level by looking at outcomes such as test scores, graduation rates, college acceptance rates, job placement etc.

As far as testing goes, our kids are way overtested. My 9th grade students take standardized tests at least 4-5 times a year, often creating a 1-2 week disruption of their learning. Because standards and curricula are not rolled out uniformly and are not supplemented with the necessary resources, it is often structurally impossible to prepare kids for these tests. Furthermore, the tests count on teacher evaluations but kids are not required to pass them. Some charters require the same testing while others don't, but it is their choice.

I could expand on all of these topics in a much lengthier manner, to be honest.

I think education is a topic that gets very poor and slanted coverage in the media.

The tests I took were based on the subject I was studying. I am totally against the testing used to evaluate the teacher. There are students with differing abilities in each grade in public schools.

however the emphasis is particularly on Math and English. And mosts of the tests are converging on a similar sub-set of analytical skills with random content knowledge thrown in there (except for Math classes, which are obviously pretty inflexible content-wise).

knowledge of analytical skills and random content knowledge. I also remember everyone hated that test and play tic-tac-toe by ignoring the questions and marking the answers in a random manner. Thus they did not indicate anything except that kids will be kids.

>>>Are charter schools just a way to suck money away from the public school system, or are they potential models for improvement? >>>>>>

They were CONCEIVED as exactly that: "potential models for improvement". But that was a 1970s concept. ( Actually I think the idea originated w. the NYC union) It's long since been discovered by the entrepreneurial class as a way to break unions and to be....well.... entrepreneurial. The rhetoric is high-minded, natch, but the giveaway is the payoffs by the "non-profits" to electeds ( in NYC it is blatant and *obscene*) in return for legislation granting favorable treatment ( free rent, etc. ) by lawmakers. Yes, the other usual criticisms are generally true: they cream the best students, avoid special ed and ELLs and "counsel out" disciplinary problems. Then they crow about their high test scores, etc.

>>> Teachers unions take a beating in the press. In general, I support unions as necessary for protecting worker's rights and benefits. Is there any validity to the charge that teachers unions specifically are a barrier to improving education (i.e. Waiting for Superman type stuff)?>>>

Teachers unions are generally bought-off at the leadership level ( or they BEHAVE AS THOUGH they are) and are generally ineffective and reluctant advocates for their members . Teachers union professionals ( i.e. people who are on salary w. the union) are generally doing pretty well w. the corporate reforms. Proof is in the pudding: show me where "school reform" has been defeated, has been definitively turned back via the efforts of teachers unions.


>>>Is lack of resources and spending the primary problem? >>>

In my experience, no. There's plenty of $$$. It's just misallocated. Schools systems are run by people who have learned to work the system for their own personal benefit. I'm NOT talking about classroom teachers. NYC just went through a big fight over a hunk of change owed to it for schools by NYS. I thought it was silly. The money's going to be spent on bureaucracy, consultants, contractors, etc. Again: the schools are run by people who have learned to work the system.

>>>>I don't like the emphasis on standardized testing, my guess would be that the only real way to evaluate teachers would be on a case-by-case basis. How should teachers and schools be evaluated?>>>

I'd let the parents have more of a say in who's good and who isn't. Keep the bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers (ugh!) as far away from it as possible. Good teachers and parents are natural allies. Bad teachers and parents are... and ought to be.... at odds.

...madfloridian's posts. That would at least define the debate.

We had no contract until we unionized. Everything was done according to who sucked up to the administration the most. We had lousy raises, had to do lots of outside duties for free. Then we unionized, got a contract, pay improved, morale improved, because things were based on merit, not favoritism. Even those who were against the union at first, became believers. We also became the "police" of our members. We often took those who weren't doing their jobs to the admin. No one wanted slackers to make them look bad. After 10 years, we were one of the top 10 schools in the state.
When you look into charters, some are decent. Others siphon needed funds from public schools and those who run the charter often give kick backs to politicians. Charters can also be run by hedge funds, where the various funds bet on the success of one charter over another. And some of the largest charters are owned by foreigners.
Evaluation should be collaborative with input from both sides. The aim should be to make individuals better at what they do. And it should be done by someone who has some knowledge of the content area. I'm a big fan of making administrators teach a class every year. The further they get from the classroom, the more meaningless junk they find for teachers to do.

>>>>I'm a big fan of making administrators teach a class every year. The further they get from the classroom, the more meaningless junk they find for teachers to do.>>>>>

This is possibly THE most powerful dynamic ( dysfunction?) and perhaps the MOST EASY AND SIMPLE to correct.

...seek to make schools a social class system. Public schools will, they hope, become "liberal" failures. "No Child Left Behind" and "Common Core" are secondary plans to kill off public education in the US. Republicans think of public education as a breeding ground for Democrats.

as public schools systems and be required to accommodate a certain percentage of physically handicapped and kids with learning disabilities.

First off, both teacher's unions and charter schools are quite different in different areas.

Part of the problem is treating all public schools as the same, and all charter schools as the same.

Let us take the Washington, DC, metro area for example. The District has some truly awful public schools. In the suburbs just outside of DC are some of the best public schools in the entire country. The difference is the affluence of the parents.

There are some charter schools that do a good job, like the KIPP schools, and many that don't, and whose students are scholastically worse off than in the local public schools. The majority of charter schools do worse than the local public schools, yet are attractive to parents because they don't have to accept the behavior problems in some of the public schools in impoverished areas.

The essential problem is not public schools, but poverty, and teachers can't cure it by themselves. The so-called "educational reform" movement created a belief based on virtually nothing but magical thinking that improving teacher quality could by itself overcome poverty without other social supports involved. The public, while in favor of reform, is gradually turning against this false belief system.

The only question I didn't see addressed was the one about unions being barriers to education, as asserted by Waiting for Superman.

The answer is no. All the states with teachers unions have the highest level of test scores. https://books.google.com/books?id=GwF5oj29OBAC&pg=PT155&lpg=PT155&dq=teachers+unions+highest+test+scores&source=bl&ots=3mMiMzndn3&sig=zZIexLV4_4H9_65rBoT1yJuO0i8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T8E3VevnIJK7ogTc0oGoAw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=teachers%20unions%20highest%20test%20scores&f=false

The five states where teachers unions are illegal have the lowest test scores: http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2

Disclosure: I am an CFT teacher, union rep, and an organizer for the union.

This thread turned out pretty well. Lots of intelligent opinions, which is what I was looking for.