Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a taxpayer and voter in APS. I'm so fed up. I'd accept any charter school in the county. I'd be in favor of vouchers. I'd say county is incompetent and it's big plan regarding overcapacity is to do nothing. So I say let's come up with changes that don't involve APS and get something done in the county that solves the crisis.

Arlington has the best school system in the state, many different curriculums all within the public school system, and it has lower real estate taxes than other districts nearby. I am not sure what you think charters would do better in Arlington. The only problem Arlington has is that it's concentrated its poverty into one area.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the PP lives in one of those zones and is looking for a way to get out (through a charter or voucher). No. Fight segregation. Charters and /or vouchers will only make it worse.

Wishful Thinking PP

PPP will prob either move or go private which I actually support because they will either have to pay $ to attend a better school or pay more $ for a house like the rest of us who want a better school feeder

Charters are basically private/magnet schools that people can attend for free and cheat the system

Charters do have a purpose though. Ward 7 and 8 in DC are the best example. Areas that have terrible schools and people should have another choice to attend a better school like a KIPP. Difference being they can't afford to pay for a private or move to a better area otherwise

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a taxpayer and voter in APS. I'm so fed up. I'd accept any charter school in the county. I'd be in favor of vouchers. I'd say county is incompetent and it's big plan regarding overcapacity is to do nothing. So I say let's come up with changes that don't involve APS and get something done in the county that solves the crisis.

Arlington has the best school system in the state, many different curriculums all within the public school system, and it has lower real estate taxes than other districts nearby. I am not sure what you think charters would do better in Arlington. The only problem Arlington has is that it's concentrated its poverty into one area.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the PP lives in one of those zones and is looking for a way to get out (through a charter or voucher). No. Fight segregation. Charters and /or vouchers will only make it worse.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a taxpayer and voter in APS. I'm so fed up. I'd accept any charter school in the county. I'd be in favor of vouchers. I'd say county is incompetent and it's big plan regarding overcapacity is to do nothing. So I say let's come up with changes that don't involve APS and get something done in the county that solves the crisis.

Arlington has the best school system in the state, many different curriculums all within the public school system, and it has lower real estate taxes than other districts nearby. I am not sure what you think charters would do better in Arlington. The only problem Arlington has is that it's concentrated its poverty into one area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a lot of gaming of the numbers to create a positive image. A lot of the spin is being done to capture market share and drive profits in private companies. Even "non-profit" charter schools can have for-profit management companies. Not shockingly, the two companies have the same owners / board members.

Be wary of the supposedly rosy numbers they put in front of you.

Is there gaming of the numbers in public schools to create a positive image - we know there is - it's a rhetorical question to make a point. This is reprehensible in both situations.

What is the objection to for-profit companies providing educational services? How is it different from for-profit consulting//training/service companies providing services to a public school?

If the charter school can teach students then parents will choose to send their kids there. If the public schools are successful at teaching then the parents will send their students there.

Competition and choice have led to better cars, computers, airlines, telephones, electricity and on, and on. Competition and choice help keep higher education world class. What is intrinsically different about K-12 education that precludes competition and choice from being effective?

Serious question. And I'm in full agreement with the admonition to be wary.

It's much easier to judge a car objectively than a school. Do you look at absolute treat scores? Growth? A combination? There are many Shenandoah with charter school enrollment to skin the best students and discard the worst. Then, magically, their test scores are higher but all they've done is shuffled the deck.

I'm not talking about cheating on tests, although that happens in both sectors. I'm taking about using junk statistics for marketing purposes.

I don't agree with handing over government money to private entities when it isn't clear there is a benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a lot of gaming of the numbers to create a positive image. A lot of the spin is being done to capture market share and drive profits in private companies. Even "non-profit" charter schools can have for-profit management companies. Not shockingly, the two companies have the same owners / board members.

Be wary of the supposedly rosy numbers they put in front of you.

Is there gaming of the numbers in public schools to create a positive image - we know there is - it's a rhetorical question to make a point. This is reprehensible in both situations.

What is the objection to for-profit companies providing educational services? How is it different from for-profit consulting//training/service companies providing services to a public school?

If the charter school can teach students then parents will choose to send their kids there. If the public schools are successful at teaching then the parents will send their students there.

Competition and choice have led to better cars, computers, airlines, telephones, electricity and on, and on. Competition and choice help keep higher education world class. What is intrinsically different about K-12 education that precludes competition and choice from being effective?

Serious question. And I'm in full agreement with the admonition to be wary.

Competition has led to better cars and computers but not better utilities including electricity, cable, etc. Schools are more like a utility than a good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a lot of gaming of the numbers to create a positive image. A lot of the spin is being done to capture market share and drive profits in private companies. Even "non-profit" charter schools can have for-profit management companies. Not shockingly, the two companies have the same owners / board members.

Be wary of the supposedly rosy numbers they put in front of you.

Is there gaming of the numbers in public schools to create a positive image - we know there is - it's a rhetorical question to make a point. This is reprehensible in both situations.

What is the objection to for-profit companies providing educational services? How is it different from for-profit consulting//training/service companies providing services to a public school?

If the charter school can teach students then parents will choose to send their kids there. If the public schools are successful at teaching then the parents will send their students there.

Competition and choice have led to better cars, computers, airlines, telephones, electricity and on, and on. Competition and choice help keep higher education world class. What is intrinsically different about K-12 education that precludes competition and choice from being effective?

Serious question. And I'm in full agreement with the admonition to be wary.

Anonymous wrote: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.

There is a lot of gaming of the numbers to create a positive image. A lot of the spin is being done to capture market share and drive profits in private companies. Even "non-profit" charter schools can have for-profit management companies. Not shockingly, the two companies have the same owners / board members.

Be wary of the supposedly rosy numbers they put in front of you.

Anonymous wrote: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.

But charter school and free PK fueled gentrification. Charter schools offered parents an opportunity to stay in the City past the first couple of years of their child's life.

I'm a taxpayer and voter in APS. I'm so fed up. I'd accept any charter school in the county. I'd be in favor of vouchers. I'd say county is incompetent and it's big plan regarding overcapacity is to do nothing. So I say let's come up with changes that don't involve APS and get something done in the county that solves the crisis.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Amen. I think some experimentation would help this county get it's sh*t together.

Charter Schools do not always have better data than public schools and in a lot of cases the most successful Charter Schools like KIPP have incredibly high attrition rates that help keep only the most motivated and dedicated students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was trying to make two points:

(1) more money is not always the answer

(2) there is a huge amount of experimentation and different approaches used throughout the world and that change/adaptation of the pedagogy is required to compete and to adopt new technologies and new approaches. If we don't adapt and try new things - and perhaps most importantly - evaluate and REJECT that which doesn't work - we will fall behind.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.

And I fundamentally disagree that we should turn something of such vital importance over to private companies for profit. Schools aren't lagging because they're not adapting fast enough or not trying enough gimmicks (are you kidding me--districts around here push new educational fads and gimmicks all the time: open classrooms, workshop models, magnets, etc.). Charters can keep out kids who'd bring down their stats--they're not doing anything better necessarily. They're gaming the system.

How about we try something that has actually proven to be effective at closing achievement gaps: desegregation by socioeconomic status. It's not new, but it requires buy-in from those who don't really want anything to change. So, there we are.

We rely on private companies to provide do all sorts of vitally important functions so I don't understand the objection to their involvement in the K-12 education. They are effective at providing higher education. What is intrinsically problematic with for-profit and/or non-profits companies providing education? FCPS spends a lot of money on for profit and/or non-profit consultants to advise and provide curriculum and teaching support - is this problematic?

I also question whether they are doing anything better - but many studies suggest that they are; by freeing teachers from stultifying curriculum, reducing overhead and oversight, focusing on core functions and excluding distractions etc, etc. They are evidently effectively teaching kids; otherwise the parents would not be on waiting lists to attend.

I attended a school under METCO in Boston where poor black and white kids were bused to the rich, white suburbs - in my experience, it didn't close any achievement gaps. Interestingly, my black neighbors' (a doctor) children were very successful. My take away is that it was a cultural difference - expectations from the parents and accepted by their kids. It wasn't racial or class or ethnicity or religion. This program went on for years but didn't have any real success. I'd be interested to see the studies that show that the achievement gap can be closed by integrating across SES and cultural barriers. But you're right that there will be substantial push back - unless the benefits can be shown to be compelling. I suggest that in an area like NoVa, there are no substantive barriers to educational attainment in the school systems themselves - the barriers are cultural and personal (familial support and individual student motivation). But these are within the purview of the family/individual and are not something the schools system (private or public) is responsible for. The segregation is thus between those who are ambitious and those who are not. I don't think rich ambitious people mind if poor ambitious students attend their schools.

Highlight the data showing effective approaches to addressing the achievement gap, and why charter schools couldn't employ the same techniques and be successful.

Anonymous wrote:I was trying to make two points:

(1) more money is not always the answer

(2) there is a huge amount of experimentation and different approaches used throughout the world and that change/adaptation of the pedagogy is required to compete and to adopt new technologies and new approaches. If we don't adapt and try new things - and perhaps most importantly - evaluate and REJECT that which doesn't work - we will fall behind.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.

And I fundamentally disagree that we should turn something of such vital importance over to private companies for profit. Schools aren't lagging because they're not adapting fast enough or not trying enough gimmicks (are you kidding me--districts around here push new educational fads and gimmicks all the time: open classrooms, workshop models, magnets, etc.). Charters can keep out kids who'd bring down their stats--they're not doing anything better necessarily. They're gaming the system.

How about we try something that has actually proven to be effective at closing achievement gaps: desegregation by socioeconomic status. It's not new, but it requires buy-in from those who don't really want anything to change. So, there we are.

I was trying to make two points:

(1) more money is not always the answer

(2) there is a huge amount of experimentation and different approaches used throughout the world and that change/adaptation of the pedagogy is required to compete and to adopt new technologies and new approaches. If we don't adapt and try new things - and perhaps most importantly - evaluate and REJECT that which doesn't work - we will fall behind.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

Umm no. You just pay to fund your public schools so they aren't terrible.

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.

Chicago is loaded with charter and private schools that end up hurting public schools. Finland is almost entirely state run. Private or charter schools are not allowed. Newark has not been doing that well for decades, but they are in greater decline specifically because of charter schools http://www.edlawcenter.org/news/archives/school-funding/state-underfunding-and-rapid-charter-growth-put-newark-budget-in-crisis.html. Most of China and Korea I believe area also state run and then on top of it these parents send their kids to private schooling in the evenings which I don't think a lot of Americans want to do. I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove with your argument. Your examples do not support public school failings even with great intentions and loads of money. FCPS is doing very well with its achievement gap. In fact I believe it was one of the top if not the top areas for minorities to come for schooling. The fact that this has attracted more minorities obviously brings the achievement down, but that doesn't mean the schooling for them is poor. With I-ready hopefully the school system will be able to show growth and not just achievement which will help demonstrate how well they are doing as a school system.