"Do Charter Schools Really Work?"

Charter Schools (4.00 / 1)

I'm rather neutral on charter schools.  Mostly because as a parent of a child who has gone through a school system recently, I can see the appeal.  No matter how hard schools try (and I believe that many of them try very hard) they are rather closed systems of operation.  This creates a "one size fits all" mentality (which is NOT the same as saying that an individual classroom teacher does this, which hasn't been my experience at all) which is fine if your child "fits" and a huge headache if she doesn't.

A child who is sensitive and creative is not likely to need the same type of education as a student who is analytical and hands on.  The most well known debate is the read debate -- whole language works for many students, but phonics is the solution for others.  Another example is math (hotly debated among parents here in Fairfax County.)  Right now we use a more "user friendly" math that would have been wonderful for a student like me (who HATED math) but drives my own son crazy.  Schools, as systems, with budgets and trained faculty, and a myriad of other reasons, have to make these types of choices every day.  It isn't a matter of making a "good" choice over a "bad" choice, but the fact that the choice must be made for the school to function at all.

Charter schools can help alleviate some of this systemization, however, they must realize that as they become more established, they risk falling into the problem that they tried to alleviate, without the same ballasts that can keep a typical public school together, even though hard times.  The very ephemeral quality that is so appealing in a charter school (if it doesn't work out, you can go somewhere else) makes it hard to get institutionalized and structured long-term support.  Thus, you get a lot of charter schools that explode on the scene that can't make the grade (pun intended) a few years later.

When Charter schools work well, they can be a great complement to any well-run school system.  That is the best of both worlds.  When they are being used to replace a poorly run school system, you often get the worst of both worlds.  Given that most school systems fall somewhere in between those extremes, a given charter school in a system may be an asset of liability, depending mostly on the people involved.  Which isn't a very strong basis upon which to build long-term.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Sun May 02, 2010 at 11:43:53 AM CDT

The real reason (0.00 / 0)

charter schools are pushed (and pushed with self-righteous vigor) by the entire conservative crew is not to improve the education of their little darlings. It is to prevent "government indoctrination" of the minds of those little darlings. Investment advisory newsletters and conservative rags of every description rail against government (i.e., public) schools as factories to indoctrinate the youth in favor of statism.

Remember, the conservatives of today are so anti-government they see public schools as a threat to all of their most sacred world views----- the Texas School Board's re-write of American history is another prong of their frantic effort to control the minds of their young, and is an example of what happens when they turn their attention from starting charter schools with taxpayer money to "reforming" existing schools when the conservatives rule the state so thoroughly that public schools become their instrument, not that nebulous bunch called "the government."

There is no substitute for determined ignorance.

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Sun May 02, 2010 at 15:38:03 PM CDT

Schools That Work... (0.00 / 0)

An entire career spent as a public school teacher of English (I took the course work to become an administrator, but I couldn't leave the classroom, my first love.) taught me a bit about what constitutes a "successful" school:

1. A faculty that is knowledgeable in the subjects they teach, with a love for the variety of children who will fill the desks in their classrooms. Some will be good students, some not, but all have something to offer.
2. An administrative staff who understands that their first job is to facilitate the work done by the teaching faculty.
3. Parents who support the school and who keep a close watch on the education of their children. After all, the children they send to us are their bequest to the next generation. They entrust the school with their hope for the future.
4. Students who realize that learning is also their responsibility. I never could "force" a student to learn. I was a teacher, not a magician. Learning is not a passive reception of something; it requires commitment.
5. That spark of fun that can set a classroom on metaphorical "fire" with the joy of learning something new.

(By the way, in 32 years of teaching, I never met a student who absolutely did not want to learn. The hard part is to unlock that curiosity in each of us. Perhaps some charter school can do that, but so can the public school down the street or the parochial school somewhere else.)

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sun May 02, 2010 at 17:51:11 PM CDT

"measured by achievement on standardized tests" (0.00 / 0)

My eldest daughter got a much better education at a school that was not doing well on standardized tests.  She was taught Greek and Roman history, but the tests were on US history.  Getting hammered as a "failing school," the administration changed curricula, and the test scores improved while the quality of the education declined.

We also have significant verbal components to the math tests, so Chinese students who are three grade levels above average computationally, fail the tests because of word problems.

In my experience, teaching to the test does not improve the children's education.  If charter schools are refusing to teach to the tests, they will not compare well.

---

by: jack @ Mon May 03, 2010 at 13:39:26 PM CDT

Testing per se, (0.00 / 0)

and using universal testing can be a bummer, and is one reason most teachers detest No Child Left Behind. Some kids never ever will "test well" when it comes to tests the way we run them. We just have to keep trying, keep experimenting, because it is too important to do otherwise. As for word problems, ugh! The student not only has to be able to parse the world problem but figure out just what kind of an answer the writer of the question really has in mind, regardless of what the words say.  

---

by: Teddy Goodson @ Mon May 03, 2010 at 15:21:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

NCLB wrecked my kids' elementary school (0.00 / 0)

Teachers are teaching to the test, instead of working with the kids to get them to enjoy learning.

The federal government has no business getting involved in public schools.  Leave it up to the States.

---

by: jack @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:25:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree, NCLB sucks (0.00 / 0)

but I disagree that "the federal government has no business getting involved in public schools."  Why would the states be inherently any better than the federal government on this or any other issue?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:49:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Because (0.00 / 0)

Why would the states be inherently any better than the federal government on this or any other issue?

IMO states, counties and municipalities are much better tuned in to the circumstances and challenges in their own localities than their federal counterparts.  I find that I get much better constituent service from my State Senator, Delegate and School Board member than I do from my Congressman.  If I have a problem or a concern with an issue in the schools I can talk to my board member at the next neighborhood BBQ, or talk to school administrators and get it addressed immediately.  I too disagree that the federal government has "no" business in public schools, but should limit involvement to augmenting local authority where necessary and solving really big problems beyond the scope of said state, county and municipal resources.

Local authorities are more accessible and responsive. They live the unique problems and challenges of their districts every day, and that's what makes them inherently better for the task. I'd rather have teachers and school administrators empowered to do their jobs rather than stuff like NCLB legislating it to them.  

---

by: Cato the Elder @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:32:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My experience.... (0.00 / 0)

...is that there are elected officials at the county level who are responsive and effective, and there are elected officials at the county level who are NOT responsive or effective.  Same thing at the state level. Same thing at the federal level. Same thing in business (some large corporations have excellent customer service, some suck; some mom-and-pop stores have excellent customer service, some suck). Same thing in every area of life.  Again, I see no reason to believe that state government - and by that I mean people like Governor McDonnell and Attorney General Kookinelli - would be inherently "better" than the federal government on many issues.  On issues that cross state borders or affect multiple states - the environment, for instance - I would strongly argue that the federal government is the entity that is best suited to handle things.  Same thing with issues like acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, fisheries, endangered species, etc., etc.   Take the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, and note that anti-federal-government conservatives like Bobby Jindal immediately beg the federal government for help in situations like this.  

More broadly, I believe that the federal government should be in the business of setting minimum standards for the entire country on areas that have impact on all U.S. citizens, like immigration policy, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, civil rights, voting eligibility, interstate commerce, treatment of veterans, health care, and education.  What's happening in Arizona right now is an example of where we end up when the federal government drops the ball that is inherently in its bailiwick and leaves it to "the states."  Not good.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:02:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

I generally agree with what you're saying, although we would probably disagree on some of the specifics.  Certainly I can't pick up the phone and talk to the Governor, but I can talk to my school board rep just about anytime I want. My point was more about the macro issue of the school system and my belief that federal micromanagement (NCLB) of already undercompensated and underappreciated professional educators is counterproductive.  

---

by: Cato the Elder @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:57:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, micromanagement is usually (0.00 / 0)

a bad thing.  As far as NCLB is concerned, I'd pretty much ditch it.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:58:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"IMO states, counties and municipalities are much better tuned in to the circumstances and challenges in their own localities than their federal counterparts." (0.00 / 0)

Texas and the South (in general) prove that statement if all you want are a bunch of religious nuts destroying the public school systems.  

---

by: TomPaine @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 13:43:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's the beauty of the system (0.00 / 0)

We have 50 States doing this.  If Texas is so bad, people can leave.  If California is so good, people will go there.

If what happened in TX happened nationwide, where would you go?

---

by: jack @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 13:52:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why would the States be worse? (0.00 / 0)

The real question is, is there a compelling argument that federal government intervention in State schools promotes the general welfare of the States?  To get a positive answer to that question, it really must be something that the States cannot do independently.

---

by: jack @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:55:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I responded to Cato the Elder, but... (0.00 / 0)

...I'd just reiterate that I see a proper federal role in areas that a) impact most or all U.S. citizens; and b) affect the economic and military success of the country as a whole. Education definitely qualifies, which in my view, implies a federal role (albeit, with strong local and state input, participation, etc.).

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:04:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Impact and affect are not enough (0.00 / 0)

General welfare of the States is the requirement.  The simple fact is, there is no reason at all to believe that the federal government would do a better job for the States than the States do for themselves.  Just the administrative overhead of having the money go through the federal government to get back to the schools argues against federal involvement.

---

by: jack @ Tue May 04, 2010 at 13:35:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We only follow the success charter stories (0.00 / 0)

Charter schools are risky. The same flexibility that can make them great can make them very bad. Or just go out of existence, as it happened to a college student that I met while working at a library. In her experience, the idealistic teachers with no experience couldn't take the stress of teaching in Washington DC. And even when one is dealing with a self-selected group of people, the parent of children who are  willing to take a risk for their children's education, you still have to deal with a number of socio-economical problems that people who didn't grow poor or as a minority have no idea that existed or how to deal with them.

---

by: Hugo Estrada @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:54:42 AM CDT

Isn't that the idea? (0.00 / 0)

To try different things, and let those schools that fail disappear?

---

by: jack @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 10:12:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]