It's been pretty well known in the teaching world that charter schools didn't provide the answer to "failing public schools". All these people talk about how private schools are the way to go, however all of those people fail to realize that private schools compete for money, and thus money (and consequentially enrollment) is made a much higher priority. If that is made a priority, than the school loses accountability as they eventually only search for the money that they can get. They frequently choose not to reprimand misbehaving children because they are scared that the parents will pull the child out, thus they lose their tuition for that child.

I have completely mixed feelings about charters, and I start by dividing up these schools into 2 categories: the "for profits" (represented by factory-like chains such as National Heritage Academies) that are simply thinly disguised segregation machines with second rate educational programs, and the innovative non-profits that are challenging lousy school boards to do better. One group I oppose (profits are antithetical to education funding), the other I encourage. Here's why: One district near me recently decided, in a fit of educational idiocy, to destroy the city's neighborhood elementary school concept by first, closing their downtown magnet arts school, and then, wiping out the neighborhood schools and creating a series of two-year schools (K-1, 2-3, 4-5) that requires virtually all kids to be bussed, has parents running all over town, and prevents any child from getting comfortable (or advancing ahead of their grade level in any subject). Without charters this would have led to a slow decline in one more city school district, and thus the community. But in this case, a local charter high school had just added a Montessori-style elementary. They filled it instantly, and turned away 180 applicants this year. Taking with these students (under Michigan's school funding law) over a million dollars. That funding loss - and the potential for much more of the same - has forced the district to re-think what they are doing right now. The superintendent who authored the elementary plan without public hearings or comment has been dumped into retirement (although the Republican-Conservative VanAndel Institute, run by Amway folks including GOP National Committeewoman Betsy DeVos, has hired her to advise on education policy), and there is a fast push to fix things.

Anyway, so the pressure can help. Especially in small places where local school boards are brain dead and refuse to offer reasonable alternatives for the students that need that.

A bigger issue for me is NCLB itself, which actually encourages states to set very low standards. [Texas, for example, which uses the "easiest" state achievement tests in the nation, has almost no schools in trouble because of NCLB despite being the sixth worst state nationally in student performance.] And which presumes in the first place, that there is some logical thought behind the idea that all children learn at the same rate.

I'm going to have to agree with thenarrator on this one - the goal of public schools is to induce a feeling of nationalism and of the basic principles of the United States of America into its students as well as to create educated and productive members of society.  It's a government institution, that's its job.  When we bring profit into the picture, the motivations of the private entities involved could greatly hinder the advancment of our national interests for our children.  Setting standards for charter school students as well as punishment of failing schools could (I suppose has) result in having to cross lots of red tape since we lack a functional national policy in dealing with charter schools.

~~O-Ren

Don't mean to veer off the subject, which is one I know nothing about, so I won't comment but I asked what Kerry brings to the table and got no answeres. Why?

what are you talking about weezerbaby? If you want positions: military, international, education, national health insurance, taxes, go to johnkerry.com it's all there. Of course we're still waiting for (a) tax returns, and (b) an admission that anyone who earns over $300,000 a year is rich.

and I also asked you what Bush is bringing to the table and had no answer...  In fact, I can't recall anything positive anyone's tried to say about Bush (recently at least).  Give us your opinion Weezer or Thatliberalmedia

Back to the subject: I think the report Rod Paige's Department of Education clearly didn't want you to see (but he has a VERY long record of lying, his Houston District's stats were almost all fake) shows that you can't divert student resources to profit and expect better results. It also shows why vouchers would be disastrous: Even Charters, that ae supposed to be public schools with open admissions, seem to be picking and choosing their students. If private schools got government funds they'd do the same, leaving the public schools simply the collection of the most difficult students, accellerating that split in society thatliberalmedia so enjoys.

Ok, since I cannot get an answer from you all:

Quite simply, it is obvious that Bush is a man/president who is not driven by poles. We can all believe this. If he was leading the country right now to please the poles, we would be pulling out Iraq and fast as possible. Agreed? He runs the nation on what he truly thinks is right, like any president. But many president's downfall is the fact that they begin to campaigning too soon. He leads the United States with a sort of confidence that sometimes shows as arrogance, something easy to rally behind. His plans have merit, I think, and I am intrigued to see what he will do in his second 4 years, when he can get on to domestic issues more.

I just can't get excited about a monotone northern Democrat like Kerry. Sorry. I just haven't seen anything to be excited about.

By the way, Kerry went back to saying that he would have invaded Iraq, so most reasons of going inot Iraq are now void because he agrees.

Leadership weezerbaby. Thousands dead. The largest deficit in history. 70 years of alliances is disarray. Our "friends" selling nuclear material around the world. A political scene so polarized it's disastrous. A congress wasting it's time on vital initiatives like the anti-Gay amendment. A horrendously overstretched military. More children in poverty (percentage-wise) than any time since the early years of the Johnson administration. The lowest Labor Force Participation Rate in 16 years. More Americans without health insurance than at an time since the 1950s. The first four year presidency since Herbert Hoover to have fewer jobs at the end than at the beginning.

And please, I do hope Bush really isn't worrying deeply about the Polish population. Polls, not poles, yikes. And Bush is more poll driven than anyone. He just follows electoral college math polling. Why do you think he pushed for a vote on Gay Marriage just before the Democratic Convention? He knew he didn't have the votes. Congress had some actually important things to be looking at, like the 9/11 report. He did it because it would strengthen his red state base. The same reason he just announced troop withdrawels. Please don't be so naive.

The charter school story is more complicated than the Times makes out.  And as usual thenarrator is simply wrong.  But that seems to happen so often its almost barely worth mentioning anymore.  (It's fun, though, so I do it anway.)

In any case, it turns out that when one controls the grade 4 data for race it turns out there is no statistically significant difference between charter schools and other public schools. But, you'll search in vain in the Times story for that context.

In fact, to the contrary, the Times actually highlights the comparative test scores for each racial category in a chart that says flatly: "In almost every racial... category, fourth graders attending charter schools are ouperformed by their peers in traditional public schools." The chart gives as its source the AFT. But the AFT's own analysis declares that in the racial categories the math results presented in the Times' chart were "small and statistically insignificant. In reading, the gaps were even narrower." Why break out this "insignificant" difference in a chart and pretend it's significant?

The executive summary of the AFT's own report (Page iii of the report, page 4 of the pdf) notes:

"because minority student achievement is generally low, it is therefore important to ask whether or not charters' disproportionate enrollment of black (but not Hispanic) students explains the lower achievement of charter schools relative to regular public schools."

The AFT's bizarre answer is that "The [survey] results suggest it does not." Huh? In the very next sentence the AFT admits that the differences between the two types of schools, when you control for race, "were not statistically significant." Doesn't that mean race does, in fact, explain the lower achievement of charter schools?

In any case, as usual its funny to see liberals taken in by the liberal media they don't believe in.

I'm just wondering thatliberalmedia, what am I "simply wrong" about on charters? That they pick their students? This is fairly obvious since everyone I've ever seen allows families already "in" the right to send more kids. That the students are self-selected by the most interested parents? That I think Charters can really work to put pressure on public schools to be better (my primary point)? Or do you really think that Houston High Schools with 1,500 freshman and 300 seniors had "zero drop out rates)? Or maybe you believe that it was right for Houston schools not to report their crime statistics accurately? I'm just wondering. I'm not though, going to get into an argument on racial statistics with someone who has said repeatedly that he thinks African-Americans are intellectually inferior. You really should stop talking about race before someone in Baltimore figures out who you are.

I didn't like my last sentence. I apologize. We do live in a free country and even if you believe in Eugenics, as thatliberalmedia does (he has argued over and over that there is no societal reason for African-Americans to succeed less than whites, that it just the way "they" are), you are free to say it. But I will say that I find the belief that certain races are inferior to others reprehensible.

Still, say what you want, guy, but when you mention race, I'm not going to waste my energy debating with people who think the way you do.

"Given the predominantly central-city location of charter schools, their higher percentage of black students (33 percent, grade 4) compared to the statewide percentage for other public schools (18 percent, grade 4) is not surprising."

"Because minority student achievement is generally low, it is therefore important to ask whether or not charters' disproportionate enrollment of black (but not Hispanic) students explains the lower achievement of charter schools relative to regular public schools."

The above is a quoted directly from the AFT report, the same report that the NYTimes article is based on. (Page iii of the report, page 4 of the pdf).  The paragraph below is also directly from the AFT report, just in case anyone would like to take up charges of racism with them or the NYTimes for quoting such an obviously racist report.

"Compared to their peers in regular public schools, black and Hispanic charter school students scored lower both in math and reading in grade 4, but the differences were not statistically significant. The achievement gaps between white and black students and between white and Hispanic students were about the same in charter schools as in regular public schools."

thenarrator was therefore simply wrong n he said charters pick and choose their students.  I don't kow what he claims to have seen, but the studies clearly show otherwise. 

And of course, the usual charges of racism are trotted out.

"I'm not though, going to get into an argument on racial statistics with someone who has said repeatedly that he thinks African-Americans are intellectually inferior."

Leaving aside the fact that I have never said that, this sentence should be read as "oh shit, he made a good point; I have no response, quick, attack the mesenger, attack the messenger!"

Anyone who has a serious response as to why they think the Times highlighted differences that the report they based the statistics on said were statistically insignificant to make them out to be somehow significant, your response is appreciated.

 

(a) anyone who has read your posts on affirmative action knows how you think thatliberalmedia. Nothing in the AFT report even suggests that race alone is the determinant, in fact, the evidence would argue for affirmative action based on racism-created socio-economic factors.
(b) your racism bursts through when you claim that because charter school students are black and hispanic they cannot have been "picked." Yes, thatliberalmedia, blacks can be selected, and yes, there are black parents concerned enough about their children's education to actively seek out solutions.
(c) "we're all sorry for you" that the New York Times doesn't believe in Eugenics. But they don't, and I don't think they need to work from the point-of-view of "klan science."

Again quoting the AFT report for the third time:

"Compared to their peers in regular public schools, black and Hispanic charter school students scored lower both in math and reading in grade 4, but the differences were not statistically significant. The achievement gaps between white and black students and between white and Hispanic students were about the same in charter schools as in regular public schools."

For those who need the Hooked on Phonics version,  its establishing that charter schools are serving minorities as well as public schools.

So why then, has the NYT decided to highlight these "not statistically significant" gaps, and report them as if they were signigicant?

That's been my only point throughout.  The fact that when you control for race, the disparity between charter schools and public schools clears up seems like a pretty important point to report.

Because they serve almost twice the number of minorities as the public schools, and, yet again quoting the AFT "minority student achievement is generally low," charters are in a statistical tie with public schools at the fourth grade level.

If you show me where that report ever talks about any "racism created socio-economic factors" I'll eat my hat.  I quoted directly from the pdf.  Some quotes from you from time to time would be nice.  Of course, I see as its hard for you to do so, since the stance you're taking isn't supported by the document in question.

On a side note, tell me, in your opinion, Bill Cosby is a)racist, or b) a self-hating black (liberals' favorite slur to be thrown at blacks who don't tow the party line)

The issue isn't race, no matter how much you want it to be race. The issue is that Charters should be doing better. They have a selected/self-selected population (clearly more involved parents than the norm) that typically results in higher performance. But the performance is not higher, it is, in fact, lower. It is lower for white kids in rural charters in Michigan and Iowa. It is lower in cities.

But within charters there is a huge disparity, with the for-profit run operations almost always doing worse, the non-profits often doing better. That's the point.

im commenting for the aug 21st one

bush is an ass and now he also tried to sell the war during the superbowl
Dj