With charters, the devil’s in the details. If charter schools are required to serve all students (including offering transportation and hot meals to kids that need them), and if they’re required to have a demographic breakdown similar to the community from which they draw students, and if their funds match the services they provide, and if they’re subject to the same oversight that public schools are, they can be fine.
But, wouldn’t that pretty much just make them public schools?
If they don’t get any advantage in their student selection, or any advantage in having the public school system subsidize transportation costs, and they have to provide the same free/reduced price meals that a public school does, the same services towards the learning disabled as a public school, then how are they supposed to be competitive?
But they really cannot do that and keep their mission. Think about say a high school for gifted and talented. What about a school for the fine arts? They cant just let anyone in.
A few years ago in Kansas City Missouri they tried this with Southwest High School being a College Prep School. They had strict admission standards and a rigorous curriculum and discipline code. But, a superintendent wanted to close some schools and he saw how Southwest had this extra space so they dumped them all there. The school tried to make the new kids hold up to the higher standards but that quickly fell apart because the new ones didnt have the motivation to actually learn and not cause trouble. The school quickly fell into chaos and had to drop the college prep side.
Different and smaller management that is supposedly more responsive to parents. I’m going to see if I can figure out the details of how DC does it. DC charters seem pretty well received. But I’m sure you could implement charters poorly.
Re: busing, it looks like DC doesn’t bus students, except for special ed. You walk, take WMATA, or get a ride with family or carpool.
And bicycles. My coworker bikes his kid to school, then bikes to work.
But what I was getting at is that even if we accept all the proposed benefits of vouchers at face value, which I realize most of us do not, charters provide much if not all of the same proposed benefits while also mitigating some of the concerns. That’s independent of whether charters themselves are a good idea.
Your question appears to be, how can they compete with public schools if they don’t start with a huge advantage over public schools. I’m not even sure how to address this question.
Of course they can. Why couldn’t they? All you have to do is make it clear that the GT school will have more rigorous coursework, and that the fine arts school will emphasize performances and artistic products, and students will self-select.
Don’t dump kids there, then. Of course if a school is set up to offer a particular sort of education, and kids who don’t want that education are put there, it’s gonna fall apart.
Education may not be a commodity like hamburger meat, but it is a commodity none the less. This process you describe, there is nothing about the process that requires it to be administered by the government. It can be, but it doesn’t have to be. The process is taught to educators, developed over time through experience and can have established standards, methods, measurements, etc. Everything that is currently done in the best public schools can also be done in private schools, or charter schools, or other schools. The provider doesn’t have a monopoly on a process.
Sorry, my question was more of a statement that the things that you listed were the only real advantages that charter schools had over public schools.
There is something to be said for charter schools for focusing on particular aspects of study, or for particular students with either learning disability, or extreme talent, but I really don’t see charter schools as a substitute for basic education, and, having personally come from a very large school district, I see it as easier for a large school district to provide those more individual services than it is to set up a completely different system.
The reason it must be administered by the government is because private institutions do not need to take everyone, government funded institutions do.
If we had a system of entirely private schools, then there would be quite a number of children who do not have a chance to go to school at all.
First, if it’s about competition, why on earth should charter schools have an advantage over public schools?
Second, however, they already have an advantage. They have more flexibility in how to spend their money. They can ignore certain state laws about class sizes or teacher assistants, for example. They can innovate more easily when it comes to pedagogical approaches.
Charter schools at their best are laboratories for nonstandard educational approaches. In an ideal system, they’d have a large responsibility to report back to the state about the success–or failure–of their approach, and the state school system would have a large responsibility to disseminate successful approaches more widely among publi school students.
If that’s not what’s happening–and I see no evidence to think that it is–then we’re doing charter schools wrong.
I’m not sure how you’re using the word “commodity” here.
And yes, there is a reason why the government is the best distributor of education: the beneficiaries are children and society at large, not the parents who would be making the decision. In such cases, it makes sense to socialize the system.
I’m not big on charter schools either.
But, when you have really terrible schools like Kansas City Missouri where they have been messed up for decades and have little hope of improvement, you have to try … something!
If you dont what you get is really a pseudo-voucher system where parents just move into another school zone or else have to resort to using fake addresses to get their kids into another district. The state money then goes to that new school.
We apparently have kids using fake addresses to attend DC charters. The school district is not impressed, although it’s not clear they do anything. Whereas my cousins in NJ had some inspector show up to make sure they lived with my aunt and uncle.
In El Paso, EPISD gets so much more money from state and feds than from locals that they’re happy to have kids from CH and NM show up.
I’m in favor of replacing all the teachers with zoo animals, like zebras and ocelots. Before you say that’s stupid, remember: you gotta try SOMETHING! What are you, afraid of change? A DEFENDER of the STATUS QUO?
Too often that’s the sort of thing we hear: because the current setup isn’t resulting in enough kids with enough knowledge, we should accept any harebrained scheme that comes along.
There are plenty of schemes that are worse than the current situation. Remember that the current situation is the best we’ve been able to come up with over many decades. Most proposed changes are going to be worse than it. Absolutely we should be looking for ways to make it better, but most important is not to make it worse.
I’m in Ohio, and we are in fact, doing charter schools wrong.
Not saying that they cannot have a positive impact, just saying that they need to be done right, and Ohio and Michigan are two state laboratories to look at, but only to see what to avoid.
You can vote. Bring in a new slate. Or run yourself.
By upping the game, I mean that they will have to find a way to provide an education “product” equivalent to what the private schools are producing. Fire bad teachers, hire good ones by paying competitive wages, improve facilities, etc. And if they can’t do that, then sell the school building to a private school who can and will do those things.
Not a bad idea. We would probably see a big increase in neighborhood home schooling as well, which would be even better.