Time for Charter Schools?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
from today's WSJ:
New Orleans schools - 100% charter Washington D.C. 46% of public students in charter schools Denver 42% Indianapolis 53% Lower costs, better academic performance - what's not to like!?! Charter Schools Are Flourishing on Their Silver Anniversary The first one, in St. Paul, Minn., opened in 1992. Since then they’ve spread and proven their success. By David Osborne Sept. 7, 2017 7:25 p.m. ET On Sept. 8, 1992, the first charter school opened, in St. Paul, Minn. Twenty-five years later, some 7,000 of these schools serve about three million students around the U.S. Their growth has become controversial among those wedded to the status quo, but charters undeniably are effective, especially in urban areas. After four years in a charter, urban students learn about 50% more a year than demographically similar students in traditional public schools, according to a 2015 report from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes. The American cities that have most improved their schools are those that have embraced charters wholeheartedly. Their success suggests that policy makers should stop thinking of charters as an innovation around the edges of the public-school system—and realize that they simply are a better way to organize public education. New Orleans, which will be 100% charters next year, is America’s fastest-improving city when it comes to education. Test scores, graduation and dropout rates, college-going rates and independent studies all tell the same story: The city’s schools have doubled or tripled their effectiveness in the decade since the state began turning them over to charter operators. [ Edited by Admin to comply with copyright laws. ] |
Anonymous
| I think charters would be a great way to solve capacity problems in APS. Let charters figure out what locations would work for schools. I bet there would be some creative options, and since they're charters, no one would be forced to send their kids to school in a converted office building. |
Anonymous
| Charters are not what "fixed" DC schools. That was gentrification. I can't speak for the other examples, but it's obvious that charters are given credit for helping the lowest-performing school districts. What that means to me is that motivated parents send their children to charters; gains in performance in the lowest--performing schools are obvious and easy to see; and high-performing school districts don't need or want charters. |
Anonymous
|
My son is in a charter in a western state. While I love his school, and it's rated one of the best in our state, here are the negatives I've seen:
* no school buses, so limited to parents who can drop off/pick up; no field trips, or high parent cost, since we have to charter buses * limited and expensive before/after school programs - for those parents that would usually depend on buses to give them a little extra time * extra curriculars are costly as they're usually run by outside franchises/businesses (we pay $144 for 6 week chess club. An after school martial arts 2x/week is $40/month. Lego club is $30/hour. School team sports are about $300 per season.) * not required to participate in FARM programs, so they don't. $5-$8 daily hot lunch! * limited services for special needs students * limited programs for gifted students * full day kinder is $3000/year, while 1/2 day is free. Public schools have free full day kinder. * 3 strikes, you're out program It's hard for me to be supportive of charters when they seem to, because of their practices, cater to specific SES. The single mom that needs to be at work at 7, who doesn't have time to pack lunch every day, that needs full day kinder but can't pay $3000, can't choose my kid's school because its just not doable for her. Yet this charter is supposed to be here for EVERYONE! And to add insult to injury, my kid is taking $7500/year away from her public school. (Don't even get me started on the private investors who will own this huge school and the land it sits on if the school should fail.) But again - I love the school. I love the teachers. I love the curriculum. My child loves everything about his school. So am I way off base to feel guilty that charters really aren't available to all? |
Anonymous
How is this different than a private school federally funded? They get to entirely pick who they want to attend. Charters are private schools plain and simple. Why do we want to start funding private schools? When charters start following the same rules including transportation that public schools do I'll start considering their merit. |
Anonymous
|
Our charter has free K, participates in Farms, complies with special needs, pulls out for gifted (but that may be weak...we'll see) and offers reasonable before/after care and busing. It's way different than private.
We also don't seem to have many franchise programs. Are those at school? Our school is super strict about who can be at the school. Not girl scouts. |
Anonymous
| 14:37 - what school is that? |
Anonymous
Not girl scouts? What does this mean? Charter schools should not discriminate if they want federal or state funding. |
Anonymous
We have a local taekwondo club that comes in 2x per week (sorry, I was wrong, it's $80 per month for 2x per week), a gymnastics program that's city wide and travels to different schools in the area comes 2x per week, and a franchised Lego program, a franchised science program, and a private chess program each that come in 1x per week. Our after school "babysitting" program is $6-7 hour, they just raised the rates and I can't remember exactly which it is. So, plenty of after school programs to help parents, but they are all pricey options. Our school doesn't sponsor, but will allow, girl scout troops and cub scout dens to meet on school grounds. Our school is super strict about who can be at the school too - I think it's a prerequisite to be costly and elite. 
|
Anonymous
| It disgusts me that we are even having this debate |
Anonymous
| I really don't understand the appeal of charters. They take away your right as a taxpayer to elect someone to oversee the school. Why would anyone want this? |
Anonymous
If you don't like the charter, you don't send your kid. If.there were no charters, I would be stuck sending my kid to a terrible public school or paying for private. |
Anonymous
Umm no. You just pay to fund your public schools so they aren't terrible. |
Anonymous
What makes your public school terrible? Just curious about how that is determined. |
Anonymous
This idea that more money is all that's necessary to improve public education has been definitively shown to be empty rhetoric. Look at the expenditures that were made in Newark for a sobering example of great intentions, loads of money, and a failure. Look at spending on Chicago schools. Look at FCPS and the lack of success in closing the 'achievement gap". It doesn't make sense to continue with a model/system that has serious flaws. Competition and choice have made our economy the best in the world. There is some reason to believe that instituting the same structures to the school system might lead to better results - it certainly seems worth a try. Someone said that the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The Chinese are trying new approaches; the Koreans are successful with a very different model of schooling; Finland uses a completely different approach. So, the U.S. ranks in the bottom of the developed world in educational attainment - let's try something new. |