• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A charter school vs a government-run school - in the same building

These despicable public unions are part of the progressive regulatory state, which is why this belongs in government regulation forum.

Anyway, Thomas Sowell points out the results of a charter school which rents space inside of a government-run school (timestamped):



Just like in the healthcare industry, these terrible outcomes are the result of putting the interests of the workers ahead of what's best for consumers.


I credit the writings of Thomas Sowell and C.S. Lewis as the most influential works that made me question, and eventually abandon, my hard-held progressive ideals of my late teens an twenties.

I am forever grateful that they put their brilliant thoughts on paper.
 
We're not discussing private schools. We're discussing different types of public schools.
Charter schools don't have to follow the same rules for suspension and expulsion as public schools either.
 
The talent pool is different if students aren't randomly assigned to either the charter school or the public school.

A better way to measure schools:

Take all the factors about their students that are outside of the school's immediate control: Family income, race, sex, family living situation, urban/rural, English proficiency, etc. Now for each student, use machine learning to predict how well such a student would be predicted to do in an average school. Compare that to how well they actually did.

Schools that underperformed the fundamentals of their student body are bad, regardless of their objective test scores. Schools that overperform the fundamentals are good. A school could be in the 20th percentile of test scores and still be an incredible success, if we'd expect it to be in the 5th percentile. Likewise, a school in the 80th percentile could be an abysmal failure if it should be in the 99th percentile.

Fair point, the biggest difference between the charter and public schools, I'd guess, is the involvement of the children's parents in their children's education.

Moreover, charter schools tend to draw more dedicated teachers than public school as well.

But that doesn't absolve the public schools, however, since they have more and more tried to supplant the role of parents in a child's life.
 
Fact, in MA it is illegal for charters to reject students for any reason other than capacity. When they're oversubscribed -- and most are, which should tell you something -- they must hold a random lottery.
You often have to apply 10 months in advance to get into that lottery. (That alone eliminates many marginal students).

Also.


"Most also have clauses in their charters to give preference for siblings and/or members of the charter board," Valant says, noting that such admissions practices may also present inequitable scenarios for families. "So they do not and cannot always take any child that wants to attend, whereas traditional public schools do have to take all students."
There are exceptions for siblings so parents can keep their kids together; all that means is that the random selection is at a family level, not just the student level.

Why are you so afraid of of the facts here? Charters have been shown to outperform traditional public schools, and aren't student outcomes the priority for you?
when you compare apples to apples charters do not outperform.

Bottom line.

Public schools have to take everybody immediately. Regardless of how crowded they are

Charter schools do not.
 
No it’s not.

Because that leaves kids excluded.

That’s why we have public education - so ALL children get an education.
But if the teacher must teach to the lowest common denominator, is the higher achieving student really getting a proper education?
 
Yes, as are traditional public schools.

If you're angling for the union talking point that MA charters boost their grades by pushing out weaker students, that doesn't hold, either, since the studies I cited control for that factor.
Public education ends up providing schools of last resort, or do you deny that’s the case?
 
But if the teacher must teach to the lowest common denominator, is the higher achieving student really getting a proper education?
Teachers follow a curriculum. Show that they are doing different.
 
Charter schools don't have to follow the same rules for suspension and expulsion as public schools either.
In MA, they do.

Regardless, you're barking up the wrong tree as the studies I've cited control for students leaving charters mid-year.
 
You often have to apply 10 months in advance to get into that lottery. (That alone eliminates many marginal students).
So what?

Also.


"Most also have clauses in their charters to give preference for siblings and/or members of the charter board," Valant says, noting that such admissions practices may also present inequitable scenarios for families. "So they do not and cannot always take any child that wants to attend, whereas traditional public schools do have to take all students."

when you compare apples to apples charters do not outperform.
Yes, they absolutely do outperform in an apples-to-apples comparison,. Why do you think the siblings clause invalidates the studies?

Or, look at is this way, here's a list of the authors of one of the studies I've sided:
  • Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Duke University
  • Josh Angrist, MIT and National Bureau of Economic Research
  • Sarah Cohodes, Harvard Graduate School of Education
  • Susan Dynarski, University of Michigan School of Education and Ford School of Public Policy and National Bureau of Economic Research
  • Jon Fullerton, Harvard Graduate School of Education
  • Thomas Kane, Harvard Graduate School of Education
  • Parag Pathak, MIT and National Bureau of Economic Research

Do you really think you've come across a fact that invalidates those studies that people like these have missed? Do you think you know more about conducting such studies than these people? Seriously?


Bottom line.

Public schools have to take everybody immediately. Regardless of how crowded they are

Charter schools do not.
Charters accept all types of students, and they've been proven to produce better outcomes for all types of students. Fact, not opinion.
 
Public education ends up providing schools of last resort, or do you deny that’s the case?
I assert MA public charter schools outperform MA traditional public schools with the same kinds of students. I have cited dozens of studies that support this assertion. So do tell, why should I believe otherwise?
 
In MA, they do.

Regardless, you're barking up the wrong tree as the studies I've cited control for students leaving charters mid-year.
No, it's not apples to apples to apples.

Public schools have to take every student that shows up, immediately, regardless of how crowded they are.

Charter schools do not.
 
No, it's not apples to apples to apples.

Public schools have to take every student that shows up, immediately, regardless of how crowded they are.

Charter schools do not.

This study dates from 2009 but was confirmed in a follow-up study in 2013:
Whether using the randomized lotteries or statistical controls for measured background characteristics, we generally find large positive effects for Charter Schools, at both the middle school and high school levels. For each year of attendance in middle school, we estimate that Charter Schools raise student achievement .09 to .17 standard deviations in English Language Arts and .18 to .54 standard deviations in math relative to those attending traditional schools in the Boston Public Schools. The estimated impact on math achievement for Charter middle schools is extraordinarily large. Increasing performance by .5 standard deviations is the same as moving from the 50th to the 69th percentile in student performance. This is roughly half the size of the black-white achievement gap. In high school, the estimated gains are somewhat smaller than in middle school: .16 to .19 standard deviations in English Language Arts; .16 to .19 in mathematics; .2 to .28 in writing topic development; and .13 to .17 in writing composition with the lottery-based results. The estimated impacts of middle schools and high school Charters are similar in both the “observational” and “lottery-based” results.
Source: https://cepr.harvard.edu/publicatio...bostons-charter-pilot-and-traditional-schools

Why should I believe you and not this study?
 
No, it's not apples to apples to apples.

Public schools have to take every student that shows up, immediately, regardless of how crowded they are.

Charter schools do not.
Or this one:

Setren compared the achievement of special needs lottery applicants in charters and in traditional public schools, and was surprised to discover that across the board, regardless of their level of need, these students are much more successful in charter schools. In fact, for English-language learners, a year in a charter school essentially allowed them to catch up to native English speakers in traditional public schools, erasing much of the achievement gap that typically exists.
Source: https://news.mit.edu/2016/student-profile-elizabeth-setren-0621
 
For the record, by law, MA charters must accept all students who apply, provided their charter as not reached its legal enrollment limit. Here's the that law (emphasis added):
(2) Non-Discrimination: Charter schools shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, age, ancestry, athletic performance, special need, proficiency in the English language or a foreign language, or prior academic achievement ...

Source: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr1.html?section=05
 
Not a good way to measure "success", at least if you tend to blame educators

They have a choice without vouchers. The public school where I live are outstanding.........and no, we ain't wealthy
But I'll bet that where you live the parents value education and read books to their very young. It rubs off on the kids. But, where parents don't value education, don't read to their young kids, and most probably can't read very well, their kids don't value education, don't want to learn and have low test scores. It's the atmosphere at home, starting when the kids are still babies, that counts most as to whether they will be good students or indifferent students.
 
So that right there eliminates many of the most marginal students.

Public schools have to take all students immediately, regardless of how crowded they are.
Yes, they absolutely do outperform in an apples-to-apples comparison,.
No, they absolutely do not.
Charters accept all types of students, and they've been proven to produce better outcomes for all types of students. Fact, not opinion

Public schools have to accept all students immediately, regardless of how crowded they are. Charter schools do not.

by requiring registration for the lottery 10 months in advance you automatically remove many of the most marginal students from contention.

Charter schools have different rules for removing students than public schools do

The nepotism.

It's not apples to apples
 
Last edited:
Yes, they absolutely do outperform in an apples-to-apples comparison
There is no way to even have an apples-to-apples comparison 🤷‍♀️

Charter schools do not accept every student. They can set maximum class sizes and can and do “counsel out” disabled students.
 
For the record, by law, MA charters must accept all students who apply, provided their charter as not reached its legal enrollment limit. Here's the that law (emphasis added):


Source: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr1.html?section=05
For the record, public schools must accept all students in their district, immediately, not next year after they apply for a lottery 10 months in advance, and they must accept them regardless of enrollment and available space.


Not apples to apples.
 
So that right there eliminates many of the most marginal students.
Once again, the studies I cited control for that factor. One assessment of standardized test scores assigns the scores to the schools based on enrollment on day 1 of the school year, so it doesn't matter if a "marginal student" leaves the charter during the school year; his or her score would count toward the charter's performance.


Public schools have to take all students immediately, regardless of how crowdedcthsy are.

No,they absolutely do not.


Public schools have to accept all students immediately, regardless of how crowded they are. Charter schools do not.

by requiring registration for the lottery 10 months in advance you automatically remove many of the most marginal students from contention.

Charter schools have different rules for removing students than public schools do

The nepotism.

It's not apples to apples
Again, why should I believe your assessment of these facts and not those of the studies I'm citing? What credibility do you have?
 
Once again, the studies I cited control for that factor. One assessment of standardized test scores assigns the scores to the schools based on enrollment on day 1 of the school year, so it doesn't matter if a "marginal student" leaves the charter during the school year; his or her score would count toward the charter's performance.
You arent understanding. Enrollment on day one is irrelevant.

charter schools do not immediately accept every student that shows up mid year, regardless of how crowded they are.

public schools do

Foster kids, for example, move around a lot. They show up mid year, the crowded public school takes them, the charter school does not because they did not apply by November of the prior year.

Just one example of how it's not apples to apples.
 
For the record, by law, MA charters must accept all students who apply, provided their charter as not reached its legal enrollment limit. Here's the that law (emphasis added):


Source: https://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr1.html?section=05
I examined enrollment and placement of students with disabilities in charter schools compared to traditional public schools. I found systematic underrepresentation of students with disabilities in charter schools over the span of six years. This was especially the case for disability categories that requiredintensive supports and services, which are generally expensive. These disability categories included students with emotional impairments, intellectual impairments, developmental delays and autism. I also found charter schools failed to provide an array of services consistent with mandates from the IDEA of 2004. Specifically, students in charter schools were more likely to be placed in full inclusion settings compared to traditional public school districts. Consequently, this made sense, given traditional public school districts enrolled a higher percentage of students with severe needs, who typically cannot be educated in a full inclusion setting.

Finally, I found significant variability in compliance levels under state and federal regulations for charter schools. Most charter schools were cited for corrective action in special education indicators that had a direct impact on students and the services provided. Specifically, charter schools were cited for corrective action most often under the following categories; (1) assessment of students (2) student identification and program placement; (3) parent and community involvement; (4) student support services and; (5) faculty, staff and administration.
In general, I found charter schools in Massachusetts failed to meet the expectations of providing a full continuum of supports and services for students with disabilities

Their dissertation has plenty of evidence showing your assertions are simply untrue.

MA charter schools do NOT accept every student, they do practice counseling out and they declassify students.

The data - all documented and cited in the dissertation- reflects such.
 
I assert MA public charter schools outperform MA traditional public schools with the same kinds of students. I have cited dozens of studies that support this assertion. So do tell, why should I believe otherwise?
You didn’t answer my question.
 
Once again, the studies I cited control for that factor. One assessment of standardized test scores assigns the scores to the schools based on enrollment on day 1 of the school year, so it doesn't matter if a "marginal student" leaves the charter during the school year; his or her score would count toward the charter's performance.



Again, why should I believe your assessment of these facts and not those of the studies I'm citing? What credibility do you have?
A U.S. Department of Education report confirmed that
many charter schools systematically and illegally “counsel out” students with disabilities rather
than making accommodations and providing the required services and supports.4 Students of
color are also counseled out of charters through the overuse of suspensions5 plus codes of
conduct and informal removal processes that fail to observe and inform families of their legal
rights.


Gosh…not surprising that MAGAs want the DOE closed.

The DOE investigates schools breaking federal law.
 
Back
Top Bottom