I'm going to counter this argument. I agree with the results but someone
needs to look at who is leaving the public school. I don't want to use too
broad of a brush here but in our area, the parents that pulled their kids out of
the public school and went to the charter often were the ones that caused a lot
of grief for the school and the teachers.
This is GREAT news! Choice and competition results in higher quality - a simple
economic principle as true in education as in widgets!! I am not
understanding Supt. Withers remarks. He dismisses the findings by saying
charters just happened to come into being when all schools were trying hard to
improve. How does that explain that the findings? Are we to believe that all
the schools near charters just happened to be schools trying harder, and all the
schools not near a charter school were not trying harder? Nonsensical. Sour
Correlation is not causation.
Orem Parent - help me understand what your comment has to do with the article?
What argument are you countering? It sounds like you are trying to
draw a correlation between demanding parents leaving so the public schools do
better?Metisophia of course it isn't causation - but the
correlation is considered "significant" enough that we ought to be
taking next steps to determine impacting variables. And in any case, charter
schools are being shown to be beneficial, which many of us have known for years
and are excited about others seeing it so education can improve for ALL our
Enrollment in charter schools is done by lotteries so saying that the bad kids
left the public school system and went to charters really isn't possible.
Perhaps kids whose parents put them in the lottery were those whom the public
school system was not working for them and they wanted an alternative. As a
charter school teacher i had all kids of kids just like in the public schools.
Don't get excited - we're still a below average performing state in a
country ranking near the bottom of industrialized countries. Moving up 1% or 2%
is PATHETIC!!!Our schools are terrible because we hire the wrong
adults. Face it, in 2013 you must pay teachers significantly more money if you
want to attract teachers with an IQ over 110. Otherwise, our kids will continue
to be taught by people who have significantly less ability than the teachers we
had.Shame on us.
This research really shows nothing. Metisophia accurately points out
correlation and causation are two entirely different things. What happened to
scores of schools that did not have charter schools within 5 miles? I suspect
that those schools also improved. Had they not improved that information would
have been included in the study to bolster the argument that charter schools
were the source of improvement in traditional schools. If the researcher did
not look at all schools in the state or at least a sampling of schools that did
not have charter schools within 5 miles, then his research was flawed with the
intent to have the research match a preconceived conclusion.
Since states are supposed to be the laboratories of democracy and education
(until fairly recently) is the responsibility of states and local governments,
it is baffling how all of our states have adopted the geographic monopoly system
that is American public education. Even the most socialist countries
in the world (e.g., France and Sweden) have more school choice than we do.
Sweden's move to a voucher system is now 10 years strong and the results
are overwhelmingly positive.Sad that in 2013 Sweden's school
system looks like something designed by Milton Friedman while ours looks like
(and was) something designed by John Dewey. Not sure what to attribute this
bizarre state of affairs to other than the power of teachers unions and their
faith in a flawed ideology.Conservatives should (rightly) be taken
to task on many issues because… well frankly, they've gone a bit off
the rails lately. But this is one issue where their ideas (vouchers) are
correct. Now if we could just get them to stop trying to teach
creationism in science classes... oh well, one battle at a time.
I don't think too many people who have commented here have kids at a
charter school.The charter schools attract kids who have parents
that are concerned about their education. What that means is that you have a
higher proportion of kids with learning disabilities leaving the traditional
schools and going to the charter schools.So, lets think about it.
If you remove the kids that score the lowest on the tests, what do you think
will happen to the average scores?
I don't believe you are accurate regarding more learning disabled kids
leaving for charters. Charter schools have about the same % of special
education kids as the district schools.
Redshirt,I don't have kids at charter schools, but I have
friends who do, and while I would agree that the typical charter school parent
is much more involved in virtually all aspects of their child's life, I
would have to disagree with your statement that charter schools have a higher
percentage of the children with learning disabilities. Yes their are charter
schools that cater specifically to special needs, but overall charters have a
lower percentage of these students, and a higher percentage of students in the
upper 25% of their peers.
This article is hard to believe. I am not surprised the DN would print such an
opinion. I hope that all commentors and the DN itself would do some research
prior to printing such a misrepresentation of the truth. UCAS is the
reporting mechanism for our schools. If you go to the USOE site, you will see
that charter schools do NOT serve the same percentage of at-risk children as our
traditional public schools. Our teachers have been looking at data since the
inception of NCLB. Withers is correct. The charter school has nothing to do with
this increase. I am a teacher with a charter near my school. I don't
think twice about that charter except when post October 1 when the students
start coming back to my traditional public school. Why? Because the charter
keeps the $$$ and suggests to parents that perhaps their child would be better
served elsewhere. Something that my school cannot do nor would we consider
saying such a thing.I would hope that the DN would take a look at the
major successes in our tradtional public schools.