California Charter Schools Outperform Public

[desflood]

Study: Calif. Charter Schools Outperform Public
Wednesday, May 25, 2005

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California's charter schools (search) are 33 percent more likely to meet their academic goals than traditional public schools, a study released Wednesday found.

Classroom-based charter middle schools stood out in particular, with 81 percent meeting the state-set goals for student improvement, compared with 54 percent of traditional schools, according to EdSource (search), a Palo Alto-based nonpartisan organization that studies public education.

Researchers looked at demographically similar students who were at the same academic starting point, using scores from California's high school exit exam and the Academic Performance Index (search), which includes results from several standardized tests.

The study didn't examine what caused the difference.

Caprice Young, CEO of the California Charter Schools Association (search), said the findings illustrated that charter schools -- especially those serving high school students -- "get kids who are far below grade level, and we bring them up faster than noncharter schools."

No differences were seen between new charter schools and those that had been operating for a while, senior policy analyst Brian Edwards said. There also was little difference between schools that were converted from traditional public schools and those that were started from scratch.


California's charter school law, approved in 1992, allows for public schools that are free from many state regulations, in hopes that greater flexibility will bring academic gain.

There are now about 510 charter schools enrolling more than 180,000 students, less than 3 percent of California's 6.3 million public school students in kindergarten through 12th grade.

[MannyIsGod]

What are the differences between a charter school and a regular public school?

[desflood]

Charter schools are nonsectarian public schools of choice that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools. The "charter" establishing each such school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3-5 years. At the end of the term, the entity granting the charter may renew the school's contract. Charter schools are accountable to their sponsor-- usually a state or local school board-- to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for this accountability. They are accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups: the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them.

Hang on a second, I'll get a link...

www.uscharterschools.org

[MannyIsGod]

Thats really interesting. On the surfact, it seems as though it's basicaly less micromanagement from the state level which (DUH!) would be great. I'm really interested to find out more; I'll have to do some research in a bit

[The Ressurrected One]

Meanwhile, a home-schooled kiddo wins the national geography bee...again!

Government needs to get out of the education business, period. They're no good at it.

[Clandestino]

yeah, but does that kid have any social skills?

[Nbadan]

Charter schools in Texas don't preform any better, and some actually do worse than public schools. Maybe the problem isn't with the schools after all?

[desflood]

yeah, but does that kid have any social skills?
What, you don't think parents can teach social skills also? I'd rather my kids learn decent manners from me than all the crap in the world a bunch of little brats can teach them.

[Nbadan]

What, you don't think parents can teach social skills also? I'd rather my kids learn decent manners from me than all the crap in the world a bunch of little brats can teach them.

Its not about teaching manners, its about teaching social skills so that our kids know how to interact with other people in the work force. My question is, why does it take home schooling for some parents to really become involved in their kids education?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm a fan of home schooling, but it's not for everyone. Social skills are important but there are other avenues.

However, California is onto something positive here, and I'd love to see the hows and whys.

Oh, and I agree that eventual privitazation of the school system is a good thing, but it must be accomplished in a transitional manner. You can't just do it overnight, it's going to take years to develop a private sector capable of handling it.

Also, there must be an assurance that all children willhave access to education and that the poor will not be priced out of a decent education.

[desflood]

Many parents now are too selfish to be parents! They don't want to take time away from their own pursuits to see to their children's needs, including education.

As for your point on the performance of charter schools in Texas - there are several reasons for this. One, a majority of students in charter schools in Texas are minorities with all the "risk factors" (low income, etc). Two, the charter schools are having to make up for the lack of education accumulated by public school students over the years. Do you think they can do that quickly? I'd think it'd take quite a long time to pull so many out of the depths of ignorance brought on by years of public school.

[MannyIsGod]

The California schools are doing it quickly, and that's impressive. It's really too complex to make quick assumptions as to why it works, but it definetly merits looking into.

[Useruser666]

Many parents now are too selfish to be parents! They don't want to take time away from their own pursuits to see to their children's needs, including education.

As for your point on the performance of charter schools in Texas - there are several reasons for this. One, a majority of students in charter schools in Texas are minorities with all the "risk factors" (low income, etc). Two, the charter schools are having to make up for the lack of education accumulated by public school students over the years. Do you think they can do that quickly? I'd think it'd take quite a long time to pull so many out of the depths of ignorance brought on by years of public school.

And some parents are just too busy. Not everyone can homeschool their kids. It's almost a luxury. Social interaction with others is very important. And that is something you miss out on as a homeschooler.

The part about these charter schools that worries me is how they deal with low performing children. Does the school help them, or try and kick them out to raise their own overall performance? What about special needs children? Does a school who's survival is based off of performance accept children who may drag down their achievement level?

EDIT: Maybe the charter schools are already exculding these types of students and this is how their records seem more stellar?

[desflood]

And some parents are just too busy. Not everyone can homeschool their kids. It's almost a luxury. Social interaction with others is very important. And that is something you miss out on as a homeschooler.

The part about these charter schools that worries me is how they deal with low performing children. Does the school help them, or try and kick them out to raise their own overall performance? What about special needs children? Does a school who's survival is based off of performance accept children who may drag down their achievement level?
Homeschooling is not a luxury. You just have to be willing to make sacrifices. And most homeschoolers take several classes outside of the home. They have social interaction galore.

Charter schools are in business to help kids. So, if a child was struggling, it makes sense they would do what they could to help, not just dump them off!

[MannyIsGod]

Homeschooling involves a lot more than sacrafices. It's not easy raising a family on one income.

[desflood]

Homeschooling involves a lot more than sacrafices. It's not easy raising a family on one income.
And yet, people do it all the time, and quite often on a low income to boot. It's about doing what you think is best for your kids.

[MannyIsGod]

Look, I'm not going to argue whether it's hard or not with you. That shit can go back and forth all day. If you're able to accomplish it, then great. I applaud you. Standing fucking ovation even. But dont' act as if those who aren't able to home school their kids are all selfish parents who simply aren't doing whats best for their kids.

I'd love to see how home schooling would be anything but a luxry to a divorced or single parent.

[Useruser666]

Homeschooling is not a luxury. You just have to be willing to make sacrifices. And most homeschoolers take several classes outside of the home. They have social interaction galore.

Charter schools are in business to help kids. So, if a child was struggling, it makes sense they would do what they could to help, not just dump them off!

And how do you home school if you're a single parent? Without one parent making REALLY good money, and the other being stay at home, how does one homeschool their kids? Tell me how you can provide an education to your child if you barely have enough money to keep a roof over your family's head. I guess if can make the sacrafice and live on welfare then you can do it.


ADDED: What I meant about the charter school dumping low preforming kids is that if those kids where kicked out of their school, then they wouldn't be on their books. If the school can cut the low preformers out, it makes them look better, because their averages are raised.

[desflood]

There are work at home jobs.

[MannyIsGod]

*sigh*

My head already hurts so fucking much and it's not even 5.

[desflood]

And how do you home school if you're a single parent? Without one parent making REALLY good money, and the other being stay at home, how does one homeschool their kids? Tell me how you can provide an education to your child if you barely have enough money to keep a roof over your family's head. I guess if can make the sacrafice and live on welfare then you can do it.
You don't have to have a really good income to have one stay at home parent homeschool.

[Useruser666]

There are work at home jobs.

Uh yeah there are, but are there enough for every single parent to all of sudden take? And if your doing your work at home job, how then are you teaching your kids? Atleast at school the person who is teaching your kid is only doing one job at a time.

[Useruser666]

You don't have to have a really good income to have one stay at home parent homeschool.

Then how do you pay the bills?

[desflood]

Uh yeah there are, but are there enough for every single parent to all of sudden take? And if your doing your work at home job, how then are you teaching your kids? Atleast at school the person who is teaching your kid is only doing one job at a time.
But the person who is teaching your kid at school (at least you hope they are) is also teaching 25-30 other kids.

As for your other point, there has to be some income, of course, but it doesn't have to be a big one. Probably $30,000 a year would be sufficient.

[Useruser666]

But the person who is teaching your kid at school (at least you hope they are) is also teaching 25-30 other kids.

They also have the facilities to teach those kids. They are also professionally trained to teach.


Homeschooling can be done, but it is not even close to being good for everyone.

[desflood]

Yeah, like all those public school classrooms with history books that came out when Reagen was president! Some facilities! I'm just kidding. But, you don't have to be professionally trained to teach your kids. Do you have kids? Didn't they learn anything at all from you before they went into school?

Nothing is good for everyone. But the way it stands now, public school is good for almost no one (except the teacher's union, of course).

[MannyIsGod]

But the person who is teaching your kid at school (at least you hope they are) is also teaching 25-30 other kids.

As for your other point, there has to be some income, of course, but it doesn't have to be a big one. Probably $30,000 a year would be sufficient.
You can support a family on 30k a year, but you damn well better be prepared to live at the bottom level.

[Useruser666]

Yeah, like all those public school classrooms with history books that came out when Reagen was president! Some facilities! I'm just kidding. But, you don't have to be professionally trained to teach your kids. Do you have kids? Didn't they learn anything at all from you before they went into school?

Nothing is good for everyone. But the way it stands now, public school is good for almost no one (except the teacher's union, of course).

Yeah, facilities like a gym, fields, labs, computers and other specialty departments. Then there are any sports for your kids to play in. But there are still the basics of affording not having a parent working.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Meanwhile, a home-schooled kiddo wins the national geography bee...again!

Government needs to get out of the education business, period. They're no good at it.

WGAF! winning the national geography bee don't mean shit.

[E20]

The school I go to in Cali sucks ass! I'm afraid to go to the bathroom. And they're are a bunch of losers everywhere that I wanna punch really badly.

[desflood]

Yeah, facilities like a gym, fields, labs, computers and other specialty departments. Then there are any sports for your kids to play in. But there are still the basics of affording not having a parent working.
You can have any of those specialities in your home or nearby community. And you can take your kids to the YMCA for just about any sport. It's easier to live on one income that most people think. "We just can't afford it" is a myth many people use as an excuse for not wanting to do it.

[ChumpDumper]

Aren't all of the schools in the study public schools? Then why act like they aren't?

And home schooling is only as good as the teacher -- many really suck, including those in my own family who attempted it. Damn my sister-in-law is an idiot who was lucky to graduate high school, but nonetheless "qualified" to home teach because she simply bought the materials and signed a couple of forms.

[exstatic]

Also, there must be an assurance that all children willhave access to education and that the poor will not be priced out of a decent education.



What you have described is in no way "privatized".

[Kori Ellis]

My cousin homeschooled all eight of her kids (yes, eight) and they are social retards (sorry!)

Anyway, back to the original topic of Charter Schools ...

[Useruser666]

You can have any of those specialities in your home or nearby community. And you can take your kids to the YMCA for just about any sport. It's easier to live on one income that most people think. "We just can't afford it" is a myth many people use as an excuse for not wanting to do it.

I'm sorry, but the YMCA leagues are nothing compared to high school level sports. What about other activities like band, science clubs, and choir? There are limited alternatives, but again they are limited.

"We can't afford it", isn't an excuse, it's the first rule that every person should look at before doing something. If you can't afford it, then you shouldn't be doing it! Will you be living in dept while teaching your kids? What does that teach them? What about putting away for retirement? Or for your kids college? If you can barely get by how will you afford their college tuition? "Great kids! You've finished your home schooled high school education, but now we're too poor to send you to college! Yay!"

[MannyIsGod]

What you have described is in no way "privatized".
Are you going to tell me that health care today is not privatized? Because those are private companies providing the care yet we ensure that children have health insurance.

[MannyIsGod]

Whats so stupid about this debate is that if your kids go to a public school and you don't home school them it doesn't mean that you can't take part in their education. My kids will probably end up going to a public school, but there will be plenty of suplementary learning at home.

However, if you home school them, no one else can correct your mistakes. And I doubt that the person doing the teaching is going to be an expert in everything there is to learn.

[Nbadan]

My cousin homeschooled all eight of her kids (yes, eight) and they are social retards (sorry!)

:lol Here's to hoping that your cousin doesn't ever stumble into this forum!

:hat

[Shelly]

I work out of my house and I would never, ever home school my kids. I love my kids to death, but I do not have the patience to even attempt it, nor would I ever want to. And while people complain about public schools, I cannot. My kids have always pulled straight As and both received Commended performances on the TAKS in both reading and math. The schools and my husband and I must be doing something right.

My sister-in-law and brother home school. Their kids are so sheltered it's not funny.

But hey, if you have the will to home school, more power to you.

Back on topic...I know nothing about Charter schools.