In Milwaukee?
Because that has absolutely not been the case in Cleveland where Charter schools have been running for around a decade, frequently spending more per pupil, (certainly receiving more per pupil from the government), and the test scores have stayed about even.
I am not opposed to Charter schools or vouchers in principle, but they have not been a great success, locally.
I’m not sure I understand how to reconcile that observation with this story:
And this PDF document from the government’s National Center for Education Statistics says the same is true nationwide: in general, charter schools nationwide spend about $1,800 less per student than traditional public schools while delivering at least equal test results.
Well, Fear Itself?
So even though the law clearly, specifically, and directly says that it doesn’t apply to the legislature, you say the spirit was that it did apply to the legislature?
How would a law’s text look if the spirit didn’t apply to the legislature? Bolded? Underlined? Printed in red? The part where the legislature is exempted is sung by a choir?
Well, what? I thought we settled your claims about private schools several pages ago. I made no claims for or against charter schools. Pick a fight with someone else.
To review the entire discussion:
So your only issue was to suggest that private Catholic school didn’t prove the point? But you take no position on whether the charter schools examples prove the point?
Do I understand you correctly?
Could you amplify on this?
I also am very skeptical of this claim. There are indeed a not-insignificant number of charters that spend more per pupil, but those are usually getting their additional funding from outside organizations (foundations and the like). And there’s a nonzero number of charter schools that are flat-out fiscal (and educational) disasters. But most make do on less.
But you’re saying that system-wide, the charters in Cleveland are getting more per-pupil funding from the city/state? :dubious:
My position is that private schools of any denomination don’t prove the point, because they have the luxury of denying entry to those who do not meet their academic or disciplinary standards, which are almost always more exclusionary than public schools. If they don’t have to deal with under achievers and trouble makers at the same proportion as public schools, their success rates are obviously going to be higher.
Do you disagree?
For the purposes of this point, the fact that charter schools accept every pupil and still do better on less per pupil spending proves what I was saying, so I don’t need the private school argument.
So for the limited purpose of this thread, sure, I agree.
That’s a rather broad statement that isn’t support by the facts. Charter schools are a mixed bag, at best. In some subjects, with some demographics, they are better, But the broad averages say they do no better than public schools:
And any savings they are realizing are coming on the backs of teachers through lower salaries:
Which probably works in a down economy, but when things improve, teachers will have more opportunities outside the classroom, and charter schools will suffer as they chase fewer teachers with less money.
So, you are wrong about private schools, you are wrong about charter schools, and you are wrong about public schools. Other than that, I think we agree.
As a general statement, this is true: all charters do not produce uniformly stunning success in every metric. In the Rand study, test scores were not better in charter schools; graduation rates and college were, though, as you no doubt saw in your close reading of the study.
Bricker would have been better served by saying that charter schools, in the aggregate, produce comparable results at less cost. Your theory about charter school teachers being likeley to leave in a better economy is noted, but highly speculative.
I’m gonna take a wild guess here and say you’ve never heard of the NCSPE before; they’re not an activist group, but they do tend to publish research from a certain point of view. And that particular NCSPE study, was … flawed. A significant number of the charters they were looking at were startups spending money to get off the ground, including having to build their own facilities. All those costs were included in “administration.” Hardly apples to apples to put a new school that has to train all their staff and outfit a building next to a school that has all that already.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was your theater party?
You’re using an inappropriate metric by which to judge charter schools. You have to keep in mind what the charger school replaces. They are in areas where the public schools have already shown to be failing the kids. And some of these areas have an incidence of single-parent households over 99%!
So, you have to compare charter schools to what would be there if the charter school didn’t exist. Let’s call the pool of all public schools X. Let’s then call the pool of all public schools that have failed the students allowing for the formation of charter schools Y. The meaningful comparison is to compare the pool of charter schools, Z, to Y. Not X. Charter schools are not intended to be the answer in todo, they’re there to save a bunch of poorer kids from schools that have already demonstrated failure.
So, without charter schools you have a bunch of of kids going to notably failed schools. With charter schools, a good portion of those kids wind up going to a charter school, where their chance of success is much greater than at the failed public school.
That’s good news. More good news is that these charter schools can each experiment in their own way. Some will have better methods than others, and those methods will then be adopted by more charter schools. Eventually, assuming the NEA is kept at bay, public schools can adopt methods and policies proven successful via myriad charter school experiments.
Only if you are resigned that there is no other alternative, and that the difference between successful public schools and failing public schools is unknowable, and cannot be replicated.
It seems that you simply want to hold onto the notion that there exists some magical thing that can be done that has not already been tried and failed. Do you have any new ideas you’d like to see tried?
In the meantime, why isn’t it a good idea to replace as many known failing schools with charter schools, to save as more kids than would be saved otherwise?
It seems you want to hold onto the notion that successful public schools are a freak of nature, and that their success is a mystery we can never understand, and never repeat at failing schools.
I do not pretend to be a an education professional, or have simple solutions to complex problems. But what I do know is there are successful public schools, so it is obvious charter schools are not the only answer to failing public schools.
Then why haven’t those things been identified and instituted?
It seems that charter schools are the best, if not only current answer, to public schools in some areas. Specifically, in those areas where the schools were so bad that charter schools came into being. Would you prefer to do nothing, and just hope magically that the worst schools will one day be good schools?Charter schools came about out of desperation. They tried fixing the bad schools and nothing seemed to work. What do you propose we do? Really, you need to offer something up. Otherwise you simply want to the kids being helped by charter schools, or would be helped by charter schools to fail, just to accommodate your wishful notion that, “well, something needs to be done, but the answer is not charter schools”. I’m sure the kids would find that comforting.
So, what do you propose that hasn’t already been tried and failed?
Are you suggesting there are no successful public schools?
No. Which is why I didn’t say that. Clearly there are. What there is a dearth of is successful public schools in the worst neighborhoods. THIS is the problem that so many people have been trying to fix over the years. The public schools in places like Scarsdale and Mill Valley are not the problem. Public schools in places like Gary, IN and Newark, NJ are.
Now, how about responding to my questions?
What are the material differences between schools in Scarsdale and schools in Newark?