Interesting Article On Charter Schools (Diane Ravitch)

[Reefgazer]

Let's discuss....

http://dianeravitch.net/2014/09/07/the-ny-times-magazines-puff-piece-about-eva-moskowitz/

 

[Farrar]

I mean, she's right.

 

I used to sort of dislike Ravitch and I don't really share her end vision for the schools, but in the last year or so, I've come to see her as the clearest critic of the issues in public schools and in particular, the media framing of those issues.

[Crimson Wife]

 

I used to sort of dislike Ravitch and I don't really share her end vision for the schools, but in the last year or so, I've come to see her as the clearest critic of the issues in public schools and in particular, the media framing of those issues.

 

I personally used to really like Diane Ravitch (because she was one of the voices calling for improved academic rigor and teaching cultural literacy) but have gotten disappointed by her turn against education reform.

 

In regards to the article on the Success Academies chain, I don't see having high standards for academics and behavior as bad things. If certain kids can't hack it at a "no excuses" school and choose to return to a traditional district school, so what? At least they had the chance for a better education. Ravitch sounds like she would leave all kids to fester in mediocrity.

 

[MotherGoose]

One of my high school teachers is an opponent of charter schools. His reasoning is that the children who most need the help don't go there because their parents don't bother to apply. The better students leave the poorer-performing schools, and that brings everyone else down. It's one of the arguments against homeschooling too.

[chiguirre]

Ravitch is completely right about Success Academy's policies. I'd also point out that they're clearly not providing a truly excellent education if they can't get a single (not even one!) kid into Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. Maybe they need to start intensively prepping for the admissions tests?

[Farrar]

But her point wasn't that the Success Academy charters were bad per se (though, yes, her feelings on charters in general are a whole other can of worms) but rather that it was being held up as a solution for public schools when the vast majority of the things making it successful simply cannot be replicated in public schools.

[shawthorne44]

I don't know enough about Success Academy to know whether they are good schools.  But, I'm not particularly bothered by the fact that their formula can't be replicated in public schools.  If they are good schools then they are an answer to the education problem, just as homeschooling is an answer. I wish public schools would suspend more readily.  They would be a better place without the miscreants in there.  I'm also not concerned that they don't accept new students after a certain grade, it makes sense to me.  I guess my basic point is that Charter Schools shouldn't be limited to what can be replicated in the public schools.  

[Crimson Wife]

One of my high school teachers is an opponent of charter schools. His reasoning is that the children who most need the help don't go there because their parents don't bother to apply. The better students leave the poorer-performing schools, and that brings everyone else down. It's one of the arguments against homeschooling too.

 

So should we ban music ensembles and sports teams as well? Because the parents who care about music & sports will get their kids private lessons/coaching and therefore those kids will have a better shot at winning a slot than kids with lousy parents.

 

I feel sympathy for the kids whose parents don't care about their welfare. But I don't think the solution is to deny the other kids a shot at a better education or playing in a sports/music group on that grounds.

[Crimson Wife]

Ravitch is completely right about Success Academy's policies. I'd also point out that they're clearly not providing a truly excellent education if they can't get a single (not even one!) kid into Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. Maybe they need to start intensively prepping for the admissions tests?

 

What if the kids who took the test simply don't have the intellectual aptitude for the most elite high schools? The best education in the world isn't going to turn an average-IQ kid into a gifted one.

 

[ErinE]

Ravitch is completely right about Success Academy's policies. I'd also point out that they're clearly not providing a truly excellent education if they can't get a single (not even one!) kid into Stuyvesant or Bronx Science. Maybe they need to start intensively prepping for the admissions tests?

About 3% of all the students that take the exam are accepted to Stuyvesant. Success Academy's kids are going up against some of the best schools in the nation (both public and private). I'm not surprised that they can't get one child in.

[Chrysalis Academy]

I agree with pps who say that charter schools shouldn't have to have models that are replicable at public schools.  I think it's great that they have higher standards, and wish public schools did, too.  But I guess I see Ravitch's point as, ok - but don't pretend that your better results are because you have a better method - acknowledge that being a charter school gives you an advantage by sparing you the disadvantage of having to try and educate every child:

 

 "Eva Moskowitz pretends that her schools get superior results with exactly the same population because of her superior methods, when in reality the success of her schools is built on a deliberate policy of winnowing out low-performing and nonconformist students."

[MotherGoose]

So should we ban music ensembles and sports teams as well? Because the parents who care about music & sports will get their kids private lessons/coaching and therefore those kids will have a better shot at winning a slot than kids with lousy parents.

 

I feel sympathy for the kids whose parents don't care about their welfare. But I don't think the solution is to deny the other kids a shot at a better education or playing in a sports/music group on that grounds.

I agree with you. No I don't think we should ban any of those things and I homeschool my kids to give them the best education possible. I am thankful I was born to parents who valued education, and I am thankful I am able to pass it along to my children. I don't know what the answer is to the education crisis is, I just know what the answer is for MY children.

[Penelope]

I agree with pps who say that charter schools shouldn't have to have models that are replicable at public schools. I think it's great that they have higher standards, and wish public schools did, too. But I guess I see Ravitch's point as, ok - but don't pretend that your better results are because you have a better method - acknowledge that being a charter school gives you an advantage by sparing you the disadvantage of having to try and educate every child:

 

"Eva Moskowitz pretends that her schools get superior results with exactly the same population because of her superior methods, when in reality the success of her schools is built on a deliberate policy of winnowing out low-performing and nonconformist students."

Exactly. The methods may be better, or they may not. I think the same about private schools. With some of them, you are paying for the environment where families where education is a lower priority are weeded out. Of course, there are also some who do care who are weeded out solely by economic constraints. At least some of the charter schools can be a help to those families.

[Leav97]

One of my high school teachers is an opponent of charter schools. His reasoning is that the children who most need the help don't go there because their parents don't bother to apply. The better students leave the poorer-performing schools, and that brings everyone else down. It's one of the arguments against homeschooling too.

 

I would argue that leaves the public school time to focus on the kids that most need the help.  Although I am aware that studies suggest it's good for lower performing students to have some higher performing classmates.  

[Farrar]

So should we ban music ensembles and sports teams as well? Because the parents who care about music & sports will get their kids private lessons/coaching and therefore those kids will have a better shot at winning a slot than kids with lousy parents.

 

I feel sympathy for the kids whose parents don't care about their welfare. But I don't think the solution is to deny the other kids a shot at a better education or playing in a sports/music group on that grounds.

 

Of course not. I didn't see her argue that in this article at all though (again, Ravitch has argued against charters in general at times, but her point here was much more specific). And nor should charter schools close up shop or stop trying new things. But we can't pretend that if only everyone had music programs or if only every school did things the Success Academy way or any other charter school's way that it would fix things for every kid. The goal should be looking for solutions for all kids and trying to make things better for everyone - that includes kids in wealthy areas with caring parents who are stuck in subpar schools (because we all know that happens too) and kids in poorer areas and more challenges who are stuck with bad schools. But just saying that doing things this one way will work for all doesn't really help those kids - it's not looking for solutions, it's blocking them off.

[wapiti]

I have no comment on the Success charters.  Policies like admission and so forth vary widely by charter school and by state so IMO it is often not persuasive to speak of charters as if they're all the same.

 

I also think the argument about the best kids being taken out of the regular PS as dragging the other students down is overstated.  Of course the test scores for the school would go down when the top performers are removed.  The question ought to be whether the test scores for the individual students left behind also go down and by how much.

 

I think the problem lies in one-size-fits-all learning.  The traditional PS model is NOT a good fit for most of my kids and that is why they attend a charter.  They are getting a better education - for their unique needs - than is offered at our high-performing neighborhood PS.  I'm quite sure they wouldn't be "lifting up" any worse students if they were in the traditional model as they themselves would be performing worse for reasons of learning style/fit.

[HS Mom in NC]

The title of this thread is misleading.  It's an article about one chain of public charter schools. I think the issues pointed out by the author are important and need to be part of the discussion, but it isn't an article about charter schools in general.

 

We have hundreds here. There aren't lotteries to get in unless there isn't physical space for you.  Most of the people I know with kids enrolled just sign up.  http://www.ade.az.gov/charterschools/search/SiteList.asp  Last I heard 25% of school aged kids in taxpayer funded schools attend in public charter schools in AZ. You can read about them more here: http://www.azed.gov/charter-schools/   Lots of different choices for parents are better than few choices for parents. Will charter schools solve all the problems in education in America?   No.  Kids with deadbeat parents and living  subcultures that are hostile to academics are the hardest bunch to educate and I suspect there isn't a whole lot the government can do to fix that.  I hope someone proves me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

  I am aware that studies suggest it's good for lower performing students to have some higher performing classmates.  

 

That could be accomplished by switching from age-based grouping to grouping kids by where they are in the curriculum. In that type of grouping, you'd have bright younger kids, kids working on-level, and slower older kids.

 

We do that kind of level-based grouping in things like swimming & dance lessons. I was always the oldest kid in my swimming lesson because I was scrawny and really struggled to stay afloat. Whereas some of my friends with a higher level of bodyfat were more naturally buoyant and zipped through the levels. It would be idiotic to do age-based grouping in swimming, so I don't know why it is so popular when it comes to academics.

 

[Crimson Wife]

 

Rav itch was initially a proponent of charters iirc? This may be inaccurate.

 

Here is an interesting profile of her focusing on her change of heart: http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_4_diane-ravitch.html

 

[Crimson Wife]

I have a student in a for profit charter school. I could talk for hours about the problems with Charters in my state/ region.

 

Oh, there are absolutely issues with certain charter schools. I don't think anyone disputes that. But having high standards that not all students who initially enroll are willing or able to live up to isn't a legitimate criticism of the charter school movement. Lots of would-be military officers aren't able to make it through the 4 grueling years at a service academy, but I don't see anyone calling for West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force Academy to be abolished.

[stripe]

It would be idiotic to do age-based grouping in swimming, so I don't know why it is so popular when it comes to academics.

I suspect it's because most kids begin around the same age and the laws about compulsory education specify the minimum ending date. 

 

My kids have attended age-based swim classes, including when one child was ahead of an older sibling. A lot of level one classes are for kids under 8 years old. A friend of mine had to get special permission to have a 9 year old join the class; I think the computer system wouldn't allow the registration to go through. Most places teach adults (and teens) separately from toddlers. I have seen age-based gymnastics classes that also ignore the idea that someone begins after the age of 8.

 

 

In regards to the article on the Success Academies chain, I don't see having high standards for academics and behavior as bad things. If certain kids can't hack it at a "no excuses" school and choose to return to a traditional district school, so what? At least they had the chance for a better education. Ravitch sounds like she would leave all kids to fester in mediocrity.

 

I don't understand the idea that it's okay to have a small number of students succeed and a lot fail.

I also think mediocrity might be pretty pleasant for a fair number of kids.

[Farrar]

I also think the argument about the best kids being taken out of the regular PS as dragging the other students down is overstated.  

 

Maybe, but that's not said in the article at all. The inverse is being argued - that you can't take the "best" kids out of ps and put them in charters and expect what worked for them to work for all students.

 

It's not an article about charters in general, it's about whether or not we can take the solutions from one particular charter school and apply them to other schools to get a similar result. She is trying to point out that, no, we can't. I would say the more general question we can ask from this is if charter schools are getting better results (which they are in some cases) then how can we apply those to public schools and if we can ever apply them? Ravitch, as point out, has a complex history of support and critique of charters, but if one of the purposes of charters was to test new ideas and see what worked, then what can we learn? It's not anti-charters, it's asking, can we transfer their lessons and success or not?

[chiguirre]

What if the kids who took the test simply don't have the intellectual aptitude for the most elite high schools? The best education in the world isn't going to turn an average-IQ kid into a gifted one.

 

 

Yes, but the point of the blog post was that Success was systematically encouraging the average IQ kids to transfer out. They're left with about a fifth of the original class and that fifth should contain at least some kids who are capable of passing the admissions tests for the NYC competitive high schools. If they can prep them to score well on the state testing, why aren't they able to prep them for the entrance exams? In fact, why isn't their regular coursework able to prepare them for the demands of rigorous high schools? That's a bit suspicious.

[Crimson Wife]

  I would say the more general question we can ask from this is if charter schools are getting better results (which they are in some cases) then how can we apply those to public schools and if we can ever apply them? Ravitch, as point out, has a complex history of support and critique of charters, but if one of the purposes of charters was to test new ideas and see what worked, then what can we learn? It's not anti-charters, it's asking, can we transfer their lessons and success or not?

 

I don't have a philosophical objection to "creaming" and offering a more rigorous education to the students who are able and willing to do the work. That is where I have a fundamental difference with so-called "social justice" advocates. They focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. I think we as a society worry FAR too much about the former and not enough about the latter. I want to see a level playing field, where parental wealth and other factors like geographic location do not give some kids an unfair leg up over others. Beyond trying to ensure equality of opportunity, however, I am not at all concerned with differential outcomes. Not every kid is college material just like not every kid is varsity athletic material or symphony orchestra material.

 

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, but the point of the blog post was that Success was systematically encouraging the average IQ kids to transfer out. They're left with about a fifth of the original class and that fifth should contain at least some kids who are capable of passing the admissions tests for the NYC competitive high schools. If they can prep them to score well on the state testing, why aren't they able to prep them for the entrance exams? In fact, why isn't their regular coursework able to prepare them for the demands of rigorous high schools? That's a bit suspicious.

 

If the original class contained kids with an IQ range of 85 through 115 and they winnow that down to the top 20%, that's still not going to be enough if winning acceptance to the elite STEM schools requires an IQ of 125+.

[wapiti]

Yes, but the point of the blog post was that Success was systematically encouraging the average IQ kids to transfer out. 

 

It would be nice if there were more detail about this.  The article mentions kids with low test scores leaving - I didn't see average, but I was just skimming so maybe I missed it somewhere mixed in the attrition stats.  Without more info, it's hard to know whether the low-scoring students simply did not find a good fit with the school - could it have been too challenging and the kids failed out, for example, or could the style of instruction been not well suited to their potentially-special learning needs or whatnot and the families chose to go elsewhere, whether or not they were counseled to go, or maybe they plain hated it there as it's uncomfortably strict or something - who knows.  Ravitch is correct, though, that the difference in student bodies makes it difficult to compare school test scores - apples to oranges.  I think it just means that the test scores don't necessarily prove that the Success methods are superior for the group of students who stayed.  Maybe it means that the Success methods are not superior for the low test scorers, who found reason to leave.

 

There's something about the little bits I've seen about the Success schools, here and there, that rubs me the wrong way and I can't put my finger on it.  However, if they've got an educational model that some people like and a student doesn't fit it, I can't say that they shouldn't offer it at all, or that they're responsible for changing it, as the student can choose to go elsewhere.  This is similar to the fact that our neighborhood school isn't a great fit for us - same for the Core Knowledge charter down the street - even though they are both considered "good" schools. They serve their students and fortunately we have the choice to look elsewhere for a better fit.

 

Thinking out loud (because it's more fun that cleaning the house right now), intuitively I doubt that much of the Success model is likely transferrable to troubled neighboring schools.  However, I don't think the stats are going to tell much of anything - I think there needs to be much more discussion about what those specific methods of the Success schools actually are.  I find far too much reliance on stats when it comes to PS discussion and not enough understanding on a more individual level - the nature of the beast perhaps.

 

eta, maybe Success really wants to be a magnet school with admissions requirements rather than a charter school without them, though in many places, magnet schools are governed by normal PS rules without the same freedom as charters.  A murky topic that may differ geographically...

 

They're left with about a fifth of the original class and that fifth should contain at least some kids who are capable of passing the admissions tests for the NYC competitive high schools. If they can prep them to score well on the state testing, why aren't they able to prep them for the entrance exams? In fact, why isn't their regular coursework able to prepare them for the demands of rigorous high schools? That's a bit suspicious.

 

FWIW, note that ordinary state testing is typically achievement in nature and includes a grade-level ceiling, whereas IIRC, the NYC high school entrance exams are ability-oriented, so the tests are not comparable - they are testing two completely different things. 

 

There's no such thing as "passing" the high school admissions test; there is an extremely limited number of seats and competition is very fierce.  The population of students taking the entrance test would include nearly all the top PS students and many top private school students in all of NYC - a much, much larger pool of competitors.  Only the top percentile or two will make the cut - the same sorts of students who are likely to do really well on the SAT and end up getting admission to very selective colleges down the road - a far cry from the 90th or even from the 95th percentile.  IQ is likely to be a much, much bigger factor than coursework.  I don't know whether Success has a G&T program (a "real" one, with a 98th percentile nationally-normed ability cutoff), but those would be the kids to look at for application to the special high schools.  (My dh attended the top high school in NYC, probably the only kid from his neighborhood, merely blocks from what would officially be "Harlem," back when the neighborhood was rougher than it currently is.  Actually, I think he started there in grade 6 or 7 based on testing - it would presumably be even more difficult to gain entrance by applying during 8th grade to start in 9th, as the available number of slots compared to applicants is even smaller)

[wapiti]

Ravitch, as point out, has a complex history of support and critique of charters, but if one of the purposes of charters was to test new ideas and see what worked, then what can we learn? It's not anti-charters, it's asking, can we transfer their lessons and success or not?

 

This is a fantastic question and I wish I saw more discussion of actual methods and such rather than test scores.  I haven't seen discussion of methods.  Somewhere along the way, I saw a news discussion lamenting the fact that there just hasn't been much communication between "successful" charters and their worse neighborhood PS counterparts on methods, but I'm not sure where the fault lies.  Are the charters tight-lipped about their methods or are the PS administrators reluctant to reach out for help?  Or do the PS administrators know they can't apply the methods to their different student body?

 

And while I'm at my wish list, if data must be discussed, I'd also rather see test scores focus on student growth tracked per individual student (as it is with certain types of testing rather than typical state testing) - I think that would be far more meaningful to see which types of students saw growth and which struggled to grow under which sorts of methods - but it's only going to matter if we can see what happens with particular students.  Aggregate data is far too... superficial? for my preferences.

[TranquilMind]

One of my high school teachers is an opponent of charter schools. His reasoning is that the children who most need the help don't go there because their parents don't bother to apply. The better students leave the poorer-performing schools, and that brings everyone else down. It's one of the arguments against homeschooling too.

That whiny excuse won't cut it with me.  My job as a parent is to make sure my children are well educated, not make sure mine suffer throughbad public schools just so the public schools have some good students who didn't bail.  That's just stupid. 

 

So all kids should be held back in mediocrity?  Improve the traditional schools and his problem takes care of itself. 

[Tanaqui]

If they can prep them to score well on the state testing, why aren't they able to prep them for the entrance exams?

 

Because there are only so many seats available at Stuyvessant.

 

I attended that school. In my experience, about half the kids there, possibly more, aren't extraordinarily intelligent. Oh, they're not slow in any way, or even average, but they're probably just bright side of average, not supergeniuses. Those kids simply have been preparing for this test since kindergarten. You'd be surprised to know how many kids in my 9th grade homeroom admitted they didn't really want to attend that school, their parents pushed them. (Smart enough to get in, not smart enough to flub the test.)

 

Those kids probably do better than the very smart ones, when it comes to that.

 

(My dh attended the top high school in NYC, probably the only kid from his neighborhood, merely blocks from what would officially be "Harlem," back when the neighborhood was rougher than it currently is.  Actually, I think he started there in grade 6 or 7 based on testing - it would presumably be even more difficult to gain entrance by applying during 8th grade to start in 9th, as the available number of slots compared to applicants is even smaller)

 

Well, the Selective high schools start in 9th grade. Did your husband attend Hunter? That starts in 7th - and yes, after a very competitive entrance exam that's only open to students who did well on the statewide tests.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

I have no objection to separating children according to academic ability in taxpayer funded schools.  I think it's the only really logical thing to do.  As offensive as it is to many people's modern sensibilities, each different group needs different instruction, teaching techniques and content.   Those groups roughly break down to something like:

 

genius children

gifted children

bright children

average children

below average children

the worst off children

 

I think special needs kids can fall into all those categories depending on their particular special needs.

Different teachers need to be trained to deal with these different groups differently.  The ones that require more teacher training and expertise should get more pay.  We have to stop fooling ourselves about one size fits all education and parents are going to have to get over the fact that not every child is academically gifted and if they happen to have one of those kids or a kid who's a struggling learner, it's not some sort of social stigma.

[wapiti]

Well, the Selective high schools start in 9th grade. Did your husband attend Hunter? That starts in 7th - and yes, after a very competitive entrance exam that's only open to students who did well on the statewide tests.

 

Yep, Hunter.  It's confusing, because when he talks to the kids, he'll say things like, "when I first started high school" and he means 7th  :tongue_smilie: (I keep trying to explain to him that "high school" means 7th to... no one.)

[Ravin]

When I went looking for a school for my DD, I went for one that we thought would be a good fit for her-I did not try to shove her triangular peg into a square hole.

 

It's a charter. Not sure what we'll do with DS. K is a much harder decision. Too soon in the educational journey to see where his interests and talents are, never mind where they'll best be fostered.

 

Though the classical charters will likely be out because of their stupid rules.

[Farrar]

This is a fantastic question and I wish I saw more discussion of actual methods and such rather than test scores.  I haven't seen discussion of methods.  Somewhere along the way, I saw a news discussion lamenting the fact that there just hasn't been much communication between "successful" charters and their worse neighborhood PS counterparts on methods, but I'm not sure where the fault lies.  Are the charters tight-lipped about their methods or are the PS administrators reluctant to reach out for help?  Or do the PS administrators know they can't apply the methods to their different student body?

 

I don't think charters are tight lipped exactly. What I've seen is that, at least in the media, when charter methods are discussed they seem to fall into just a couple of categories: 1) the schools that have a very specific focus that clearly isn't for everyone anyway, like the Chinese immersion charters or the charters that focus on teen moms or so forth - they're great programs if you meet their specific target or if your family is looking for a very different, specific approach or... 2) they're portrayed the way Success was in that article that Ravitch is criticizing - as in, look how good we are, look how successful, everyone could do it if only they'd copy us. Except the consideration of that is so on the surface, and so polarized by the political process. They're less labs of innovation and more political props. Of course, they may still be doing great work, it's just that the great work is being distilled into something that is so politically charged and/or oversimplified that it's not especially useful.

 

That still leaves the question of whether their success can be replicated anyway. Or whether, when adjusted, the various successes actually are big enough to make a difference.

[Momof3littles]

One of my high school teachers is an opponent of charter schools. His reasoning is that the children who most need the help don't go there because their parents don't bother to apply. The better students leave the poorer-performing schools, and that brings everyone else down. It's one of the arguments against homeschooling too.

 

Still working  my way through this thread, but I've seen this with public non charter schools as well.  Where we lived several years ago, there was a year round school within the district.  It did not offer public transportation.  As a result, you had to elect to attend there vs your regular neighborhood school, and they prioritized families with siblings already in the school.  I am not sure if it operated by lottery beyond that or how the spots were allotted otherwise.  It was the highest performing elementary within that SD, primarily because the families skewed more affluent.  They were able to accommodate the need for transportation, the year-round schedule, etc. and since you had to apply or pursue it via lottery (whatever method they used), it was a self-selected group.  From that school's grounds, you could literally see the lowest performing school within the district, which skewed much lower socioeconomically.

[Momof3littles]

Agree also that this process happens with HSers as well.

[Farrar]

I have no objection to separating children according to academic ability in taxpayer funded schools.  I think it's the only really logical thing to do.  As offensive as it is to many people's modern sensibilities, each different group needs different instruction, teaching techniques and content.   Those groups roughly break down to something like:

 

genius children

gifted children

bright children

average children

below average children

the worst off children

 

I think special needs kids can fall into all those categories depending on their particular special needs.

 

Different teachers need to be trained to deal with these different groups differently.  The ones that require more teacher training and expertise should get more pay.  We have to stop fooling ourselves about one size fits all education and parents are going to have to get over the fact that not every child is academically gifted and if they happen to have one of those kids or a kid who's a struggling learner, it's not some sort of social stigma.

 

I don't disagree with this exactly. But I also think that people tend to divide up education into two camps - tracking vs. not tracking. If we're talking about offering real different solutions for different kids with different needs, my take is that both solutions can be right depending on the set up of the school and the population they serve. Some of the best schools have tracked kids with great success... and some of the best teachers and programs have also shown ways that you can get just as good if not better results by not tracking. Also, the huge failure of tracking systems has been lack of mobility and lack of ability to serve 2E and uneven abilitied kids. That has to be considered.

 

I also think when we get into different solutions for different kids and therefore different schools or school within school programs or the like, it starts to become a problem of geography. Charter schools have transformed my city. More than half the students in the district now attend charters. There are charters that are genuinely serving so many different populations that it's becoming genuine school choice. Having all these different schools serving different types of kids in different ways with different programs works really well... in an urban area where there's solid public transportation and high population density. For people living in small towns and rural areas and even sprawling suburbs, I don't know if charters or even programs that serve different kids within a single school can ever really be a reality that helps. There are many, many places where there's just not enough kids to have the type of all separated out programs that might work for some.

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't disagree with this exactly. But I also think that people tend to divide up education into two camps - tracking vs. not tracking. If we're talking about offering real different solutions for different kids with different needs, my take is that both solutions can be right depending on the set up of the school and the population they serve. Some of the best schools have tracked kids with great success... and some of the best teachers and programs have also shown ways that you can get just as good if not better results by not tracking. Also, the huge failure of tracking systems has been lack of mobility and lack of ability to serve 2E and uneven abilitied kids. That has to be considered.

 

I also think when we get into different solutions for different kids and therefore different schools or school within school programs or the like, it starts to become a problem of geography. Charter schools have transformed my city. More than half the students in the district now attend charters. There are charters that are genuinely serving so many different populations that it's becoming genuine school choice. Having all these different schools serving different types of kids in different ways with different programs works really well... in an urban area where there's solid public transportation and high population density. For people living in small towns and rural areas and even sprawling suburbs, I don't know if charters or even programs that serve different kids within a single school can ever really be a reality that helps. There are many, many places where there's just not enough kids to have the type of all separated out programs that might work for some.

 

Yes, my post was very simplistic and general, but I think we've moved too far into the "mainstreaming' mindset and we're too slow to face up to the fact that some kids need a different teaching approach, a different amount of review and practice and basics like that.

 

I think tracking is assuming too much.  There has to be room for some mobility between groups and maybe even in certain subjects, but again, all kids the same age don't need to have the identical instruction in all things.  Too many teachers are teaching to the middle ability level while the needs of kids higher and lower are bored or falling through the cracks. 

 

I agree not everything will work in every situation, but I don't see public education as a whole (those in charge and those training teachers) questioning itself and its practices and being willing to change and evolve when they can.  I also hear politicians all over the political spectrum proposing and promising nonsense.  The voices given the most weight in this discussion should be the teachers' voices but I think they're often the least considered when it comes down to making polices and practices. 

 

We've got to start somewhere, and I think granting charters and keeping track of how's it's working and for whom and why is a good place to start. 

 

[MotherGoose]

It's also not popular or PC to say, but not all children need to or can go to college. Put them in the most affluent, education-minded family in the word, and they still can't do it. They lack intelligence, or drive, or have some sort of disability. Thinking that the only appropriate outcome of public education is that you'll produce college graduates with white collar jobs, or that all children are capable of reading on grade level, is living in denial My SIL taught in a low income, poor performing school. She had 5th graders who could barely write their names, who wet their pants, and couldn't read even the most basic words. They were in the classes with the ones would could read on a 9th grade level, and she was having to try to teach all of them. At some point, you need to say that these kids are NOT going to go to college or even graduate high school. So let's stop comparing them to the others, and teach them how to count money, read signs, pay bills, etc. Some people just are going to struggle all their lives. I'm sorry about it. But for the grace of God go I. But I don't want MY kid who, by the grace of God was both born into a family that values education and has no disabilities, held back. Let the ones who are on a 9th grade reading level in 5th grade move ahead unencumbered. I used to be a social worker. I saw this first-hand. Some kids cannot do it no matter what people do to help them, and it's not the kid's fault. Or even the family's fault in many cases. Totally un PC I know, but I think it's both reality, and in the end kindest to all involved.

[HS Mom in NC]

 They lack intelligence, or drive, or have some sort of disability.

 

 OR they have plenty of ability, they're just interested in a job requiring highly skilled labor like being a machinist, a welder, a plumber, etc.

 

 

Thinking that the only appropriate outcome of public education is that you'll produce college graduates with white collar jobs, or that all children are capable of reading on grade level, is living in denial My SIL taught in a low income, poor performing school. She had 5th graders who could barely write their names, who wet their pants, and couldn't read even the most basic words. They were in the classes with the ones would could read on a 9th grade level, and she was having to try to teach all of them. At some point, you need to say that these kids are NOT going to go to college or even graduate high school.

 

Yes, and they're not going to be plumbers or welders or machinists either.  Some of them need to work at an assembly line type factory job, but let's remember that manufacturing in the US  is decreasing and something will have to be done to bring it back so these kids have something to do.  That's a very complex taxation and cost of living related issue, I know, but if someone isn't working on that, then there will be fewer things for unskilled labor to do.

 

So let's stop comparing them to the others, and teach them how to count money, read signs, pay bills, etc. Some people just are going to struggle all their lives. I'm sorry about it. But for the grace of God go I. But I don't want MY kid who, by the grace of God was both born into a family that values education and has no disabilities, held back. Let the ones who are on a 9th grade reading level in 5th grade move ahead unencumbered.

 

Exactly! And some of the slower ones that can be prepared for skilled labor or college can get the repetition or different approach they need.  (Thinking of the data from Khan Academy that shows some children need more time to learn the same things.)

 

I used to be a social worker. I saw this first-hand. Some kids cannot do it no matter what people do to help them, and it's not the kid's fault. Or even the family's fault in many cases. Totally un PC I know, but I think it's both reality, and in the end kindest to all involved.

 

[MarkT]

From my experience my son's previous charter school focused a lot of resources on taking the AZ standardized test.  Since that test is the primary score card for the schools, I would guess the school is behaving rationally.  Of course, I thought most of it was time wasted.

[kiwik]

People will insist on looking at an alternative and saying if the alternative can do that then the public school should be able to as well. But the alternative like others said is not really operating under the same constraints as a normal public school. While both are publicly funded they are not really comparable. Which would be fine if people didn't compare.