Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone else

[Slartibartfast]

Study: On average, charter schools do no better than public schools - CSMonitor.com

Middle-school students who were selected by lottery to attend charter schools performed no better than their peers who lost out in the lottery and attended nearby public schools, according to a study funded by the federal government and released Tuesday.
This is the first large-scale randomized study to be conducted across multiple states, and it lends some fuel to those who say there is little evidence to back the drive for more charters.
But the study also found more nuanced evidence that the charters that work best are those serving lower-income students, especially in urban areas.
“When you take a look at our findings and then look back at previous studies, they start to follow a pattern,” says Philip Gleason, the study’s director and a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, which produced the study. “Studies that have focused on the largest set of schools find either no or negative effects, but schools in larger urban areas, serving the most disadvantaged students, do have an effect.”

In order for any full scale implementation of charter schools to be considered, you have to look at what it does for everyone and not a select group of elite or under performing schools. However, according to the data so far, charter schools do nothing for most people, so unless they can compete on price vs public school, I see no advantages.

However, the results of charter schools for lower income students is encouraging.

 

[imagep]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Anytime you remove poor kids from a poor school, and place them into an enviroment where they are surrounded by children from a higher socio-economic background, they will thrive. On the other hand, if you removed middle class or wealthy kids from a middle class or wealthy school, and put them in an innercity school full of poor kids, their education is likely to suffer. No big suprises about any of that.

Thats why when proponets of eleminating our public schools use studies and figures that show how bad our public schools are when compared to private schools, they are really proving nothing. Take a single kid out of public school and put him/her in public school and he/she will likely thrive. But take ALL the kids from the same public school and stick them into the local private school and they will loose all of the advantages that a private education can provide.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

So if it it helps some, doesn't affect others, and costs remain about the same or are lower why not?

 

[imagep]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Because if you remove ALL kids from standard public schools and put them ALL into Charter or private schools, then the Charter schools become regular public schools, and the private schools become public schools.

The reason that some studies have indicated that kids do better in private schools or charter schools than regular schools is because the private or charter schools are a somewhat elite establishment, if you put all kids into an elite establishment, then the elite establishment is no longer elite.

All charter school is is an alternative public school that is governed by the parents instead of an elected school board. Many charter schools (specifically "magnet" schools) provide special classes for special students. But in any one geograpical area, there may or may not be an appropriate charter school for every special need. Parents who take their kids out of regular schools and place them into charter schools (or private schools) naturally tend to be more involved with the education process, this works well for charter schools because those parents tend to be like-minded and want something specific (like crazy hard advanced math or performing arts) in the educational process for their children. If all schools became charter schools, the management of the charter schools would be pulled in a zillion different directions because you would have a more diverse group of families and students, most of who are not equiped to determine school policy or curriculum - so at that point they would no longer have any advantage in being charter schools.

Hey, if you don't like what is going on in the regular schools, by all means enroll your child in a charter or private school that better suits your needs. I have nothing against charter schools, for some students they may be great. But don't assume that the charter or private school is in itself better than the regular school or fits your needs better - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. My student has a extreme desire to become a professional musician. His regular public school fulfills his need to take music classes (this year he will be taking "marching band" and "basic string orchistra" the first semester, and "honors concert band" and "honors string orchistra" and to perform in music groups (marching band, jazz band, and winter drumline) better than any local charter or public school. His regular public school also is large enough has a variety of tracks for academic classes, so he has the ability to take the lowest level of history class (hates history), the highest level of math class (which he is excellent at), and the average level of english class and foreign languge class.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Because if you remove ALL kids from standard public schools and put them ALL into Charter or private schools, then the Charter schools become regular public schools, and the private schools become public schools.

The reason that some studies have indicated that kids do better in private schools or charter schools than regular schools is because the private or charter schools are a somewhat elite establishment, if you put all kids into an elite establishment, then the elite establishment is no longer elite.

All charter school is is an alternative public school that is governed by the parents instead of an elected school board. Many charter schools (specifically "magnet" schools) provide special classes for special students. But in any one geograpical area, there may or may not be an appropriate charter school for every special need. Parents who take their kids out of regular schools and place them into charter schools (or private schools) naturally tend to be more involved with the education process, this works well for charter schools because those parents tend to be like-minded and want something specific (like crazy hard advanced math or performing arts) in the educational process for their children. If all schools became charter schools, the management of the charter schools would be pulled in a zillion different directions because you would have a more diverse group of families and students, most of who are not equiped to determine school policy or curriculum - so at that point they would no longer have any advantage in being charter schools.

Elite schools can still be expensive. The tuition there is more than what is spent per child in public education now. Many schools would still be able to retain this. The study said that most students weren't even affected, positively or negatively. However, in a system with school choice the students that do need specialized education can get it more effectively. The standard k-12 school would probably remain the most common, and most students wouldn't be affected. Parents are better at determining their child's needs than a centralizing bureaucrat anyway.

Hey, if you don't like what is going on in the regular schools, by all means enroll your child in a charter or private school that better suits your needs. I have nothing against charter schools, for some students they may be great. But don't assume that the charter or private school is in itself better than the regular school or fits your needs better - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. My student has a extreme desire to become a professional musician. His regular public school fulfills his need to take music classes (this year he will be taking "marching band" and "basic string orchistra" the first semester, and "honors concert band" and "honors string orchistra" and to perform in music groups (marching band, jazz band, and winter drumline) better than any local charter or public school. His regular public school also is large enough has a variety of tracks for academic classes, so he has the ability to take the lowest level of history class (hates history), the highest level of math class (which he is excellent at), and the average level of english class and foreign languge class.

That's fine for middle class families, but school choice helps low-income families with average kids.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Well, I think it's not really "working" because the REAL issue behind one being disadvantaged isn't being touched on: parental support, encouragement and involvement.

From our debate on the cash-for-progress/paying for academic success thread this was a key point that many of us noticed. . . parents became more involved when their children did/didn't bring home a paycheck increase - and were proud when they achieved, upset when they didn't.

 

[Layla_Z]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Because if you remove ALL kids from standard public schools and put them ALL into Charter or private schools, then the Charter schools become regular public schools, and the private schools become public schools.

That won't happen because the private schools can and will turn away the poorer students. Switching to a Charter or private school aslo takes a parent being involved enough to fill out forms and make arrangements. Too many parents are unwilling or unable to do this.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

The system doesn't have to be any more complicated than switching doctors.

 

[imagep]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

I don't disagree with any of that. I am all for school choice, as long as it does not have an added expense for tax payers.

The one thing that I do dislike about charter schools is that in our school system, every time a student transfers to a charter school, our school system looses funding because that funding follows the student. Unfortunately, loosing a student or two or thee out of each grade and at each local regular public school rarely creates any cost savings to the regular school system. In the event that hords of students were to transfer out of public schools, it may only make our public schools worse. Like if half the smart kids left my sons high school, my sons school may no longer be able to offer AP English because they would not have enough smart students left to justify the class, and quite frankly, with such spreading out of smart kids, the charter school may not have enough smart kids to offer it either. Although small schools may feel warm and cozie, there are a still a lot of advantages to larger schools.

We have 7 regular public high schools in our county, two non-descript charter schools and a half-dozen or so private schools. In most areas of the country, there is already plenty of school choice, as long as the parents are willing to provide transportation or move a mile down the street. In our county we have Dorman High School (who just one the national "Academic Team Challenge"), Byrnes High or Dorman are both fine schools for students with a strong desire to play football on a national level team (both ranked in the top 20 or so in the country year after year), Byrnes and Boiling Springs High both have exceptionally good and nationally competitive marching bands, Boiling Springs is the school to go for if you want to play baseball (ranked #4 in the country) bla bla bla. There is something special about most every regular public school. Just got to figure out what the kid needs and go there.

 

[imagep]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Well, I think it's not really "working" because the REAL issue behind one being disadvantaged isn't being touched on: parental support, encouragement and involvement.

From our debate on the cash-for-progress/paying for academic success thread this was a key point that many of us noticed. . . parents became more involved when their children did/didn't bring home a paycheck increase - and were proud when they achieved, upset when they didn't.

I missed that thread, but I would very much agree with you. A parents students are only as good as the parent helps them to be, and the schools are only as good as the parents help them to be. I know WAY to many parents that basically dont care. Thats part of my point about charter and/or private schools. Those schools are only better because they have better parents, and better parents tend to lead to better kids. If a parent doesnt give a flip about the kid, the parent won't bother to enroll the kid in a charter or private school. Why bother if you dont care? Naturally a school with better parents (charter or private) will have greater sucess. But thats much more a reflection of the families that attend that school than the fact that a particular school may happen to be a charter or private school.

On a side note, I have an employee who has two kids in public school, both of who are thriving, and one kid in private school, who did not do well in public school but has excelled since he started going to private school.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

Well, I think it's not really "working" because the REAL issue behind one being disadvantaged isn't being touched on: parental support, encouragement and involvement.

essentially this

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Re: Study, charter schools shown to be better for poor students, avg for everyone els

I don't disagree with any of that. I am all for school choice, as long as it does not have an added expense for tax payers.

The one thing that I do dislike about charter schools is that in our school system, every time a student transfers to a charter school, our school system looses funding because that funding follows the student. Unfortunately, loosing a student or two or thee out of each grade and at each local regular public school rarely creates any cost savings to the regular school system. In the event that hords of students were to transfer out of public schools, it may only make our public schools worse. Like if half the smart kids left my sons high school, my sons school may no longer be able to offer AP English because they would not have enough smart students left to justify the class, and quite frankly, with such spreading out of smart kids, the charter school may not have enough smart kids to offer it either. Although small schools may feel warm and cozie, there are a still a lot of advantages to larger schools.

We have 7 regular public high schools in our county, two non-descript charter schools and a half-dozen or so private schools. In most areas of the country, there is already plenty of school choice, as long as the parents are willing to provide transportation or move a mile down the street. In our county we have Dorman High School (who just one the national "Academic Team Challenge"), Byrnes High or Dorman are both fine schools for students with a strong desire to play football on a national level team (both ranked in the top 20 or so in the country year after year), Byrnes and Boiling Springs High both have exceptionally good and nationally competitive marching bands, Boiling Springs is the school to go for if you want to play baseball (ranked #4 in the country) bla bla bla. There is something special about most every regular public school. Just got to figure out what the kid needs and go there.

With more school choice, the schools will have to improve their services just like any business. Of course I don't want schools to lose too much money, but funding has beeen going up and up for decades with little effect.