Newnan HS ranked silver by U.S. News and World Report

Posted: May 22, 2013 - 9:07am

Another interesting article about the Charter School movement.

Do Charter Schools Work?

Posted: May 10, 2013 - 4:03pm

sirdroseph wrote:

I just recently read about this and I like the thoughts of that young man. Thanks for the video.

Posted: May 10, 2013 - 3:51pm

aflanigan wrote:

Let's go back and reexamine your notion that these reformers pushing charter schools that are funded by taxpayers are noble reformers who are simply trying to offer parents choices. When you look at this argument, it falls apart. School choice is something that has already been tried without the need for giving tax revenue to charter schools, and actually exists in various forms throughout the country. In Arlington, VA for example, you can send your child to any elementary school in the county. The different schools are set up differently, with different focuses, if I remember correctly. One is a traditional school that appeals to parents who think their children will benefit from that sort of environment; another is an arts focused school, still another focuses on math/science/technology. Google "open enrollment public schools" to find other examples. So I fail to see why we need to shove money towards for-profit educational companies to reconduct an experiment that has already been tried.

And open enrollment is something a lot of parents like. Why does it not spread? Cost issues, I would guess. It mostly exists in municipalities that are fairly geographically contained. It probably would not be economically feasible in Montana, say, because most states in the US are very stingy with money for education. The market that you insist is needed to give you choice is not going to solve the lack of funding issue, is it?

Let's face it; the people behind privatization and market-based reform are in business to make money. That's their goal, and they basically try to steer the political conversation to make extracting taxpayer money from public schools and giving it to charter schools seem a noble and principled thing to do. If they really had noble aims, they'd establish a foundation to fully fund private schools in high poverty areas in the US, and offer any student who wanted it free tuition to attend them. If they really believed in market-based educational solutions but chafed at the regulatory requirements that US schools are subject to, they can take their noble aspirations to Somalia (which currently enrolls only about a third of their children in primary school) and establish a market-based educational system free of the regulations governing education that exist in pretty much every US state.

Look, this only works if each reads what the other writes and responds to that. If you keep responding to what you wished I'd said that may be fun, but it's not a debate.

I haven't made the argument you're so keen to take issue with, but now that you're brought it up I will. I do have a huge amount of respect for those who are actually out there trying to make education work; they will be vilified for it, their efforts will be misrepresented, their motives will be questioned, and the deeply entrenched interests involved will fight very dirty to ensure they fail. There must be easier ways to make a living.

If I follow your logic, because parents in Arlington, VA can already enroll their kids in different public schools there's no reason parents in Fresno or Anchorage to be able to have any say in the school their children go to. This experiment has been tried, and we don't need to repeat it...because it failed? That must be why it's so popular with parents: we love failed educational experiments on our kids.

Open enrollment only costs more if the school district pays to transport the kids to the school of their choice (Arlington, for instance, doesn't provide such transport); the kids' addresses don't make them more expensive to educate. If you know of any other cost drivers feel free to point them out, but every other school reform effort seems to require more money to implement. In fact, if you ask the education interests how to improve school outcomes they need they'll generally answer with...more money. But I digress.

Why hasn't it spread? It has, you can read all about it here. As for Montana (you can see policies for every state in the union here) I can send my kids to any school in my district, or in any other district. I have to arrange transportation myself outside my own district, but the schools are open. Some schools limit the fraction of students allowed in from outside the school's turf and there are often other obstacles, but as of 2009 16% of students nationwide were attending a "school of choice." Are the parents of these students just morons, or do they have their children's interest at heart? Tell us why is this a bad thing, why they shouldn't be trusted with choices like this.

You seem fixated on privatization, as if that was all that was involved here. Charter/magnet schools can be run by school districts too, but in general they turn to private companies because they claim experience and can get a program started quicker, plus they aren't already captive to the forces that are causing the problems they're trying to solve. Why is it OK to run, say, a chain of coffee shops to make money but evil to make a living running a school? Or should Starbucks liquidate itself and form a foundation to provide free coffee to the public thru a government-run program too?

The jurisdiction contracting to set up a charter school can set its budget wherever they want. If they want to limit them to what a regular school costs (or less) there's nothing stopping them. As long as opting into the school is voluntary they will succeed or fail based on how well they educate. Or do you take issue with this? You seem to be allergic to allowing parents to vote with their feet, but so far you haven't provided any rationale for this.

You've claimed that fixating on test scores is part of the plot to privatize public schools, and when you criticize efforts at reform the basis of your claim of failure is...test scores. I'm going to repeat an earlier question:

Should I keep my kid in a bad school on principle?

What would that principle be, exactly, and why is it more important than educating my kid?

Posted: May 10, 2013 - 1:11pm

Lazy8 wrote:

If test score obsession = "market-based" then our entire public school system is "market-based". I think you should drop this line of reasoning before it collapses from the weight of its own silliness.

Lazy8 wrote:

A market-based reform would involve choices by customers (students, parents) driving policy. Not seeing that in the efforts criticized here.

Then I don't think you've actually looked at the main report they cite. It looked at the impact of "increased charter school access on student outcomes in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC". These three cities have all been used as test beds of sorts to try and show off how privatizing education, or increasing choice by promoting charter schools, will allegedly improve education and close the achievement gap between at risk kids and children of well-educated, relatively wealthy parents.

Gosh, a think tank founded by labor unions finds fault with school reform. Who'd have imagined that?

Yes, I read it. I also read the report much of its criticism of charter schools is based on, the Stanford CREDO 2009 study. The CREDO 2009 study did not include New York (that was a separate study, which found significant gains in student outcomes at NYC charter schools). Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana, and Missouri all showed significant gains from their charter schools, while others showed no improvement or were actually worse.

Let's think about that a minute. According to EPI the students improving their educations in places with effective charter schools should abandon that effort, because schools elsewhere are underperforming. Wouldn't a more constructive approach be to look at what the best-performing schools are doing and try to spread best practices?

By the way—the evaluations of those charter schools that these studies used? Student test scores.

There's another evaluation that might merit consideration: parents willingness to enroll their children in charter schools. In most charter schools there are significantly more applications than seats (in DC that number is 22,000—out of about 80,600, 34,673 of whom already attend charter schools). Either the people closest to the issue are real dopes or they know something that isn't reflected in these studies. Maybe the charter schools have fewer incidents of violence or bullying. Maybe the learning experience is richer—kids learn things that aren't on the standardized tests, for instance. I don't know, but I'm not going to stand outside and tell those parents they're wrong.

Oops—that would be a market-based approach. Can't have that.

Other methodologies have been tried when studying charter school results, and they have also shown mixed results, tho generally more-positive than the CREDO report.

Then why have these sorts of market-based solutions (vouchers, charter schools, etc.) been promoted as an overall strategy to improve education in general? They're not being promoted as a forum to evaluate new ideas in education (indeed, public schools have for over a century served as laboratories for various reform efforts). They're being promoted as a means to improve education by their mere existence side by side with public and traditional private schools. They seem to theorize that their presence and support by politicians will foster "competition" that will raise educational outcomes all around.

In a market-based approach if what my kid's school is doing isn't working I can send my kid somewhere else. The market isn't solving the problem, it's allowing me to solve it. Whether the school improves to attract students or not, at least my kid isn't stuck there while it fails. Should I keep my kid in a bad school on principle?

What would that principle be, exactly, and why is it more important than educating my kid?

I guess if you don't like the message, you criticize the messenger, right?

Let's go back and reexamine your notion that these reformers pushing charter schools that are funded by taxpayers are noble reformers who are simply trying to offer parents choices. When you look at this argument, it falls apart. School choice is something that has already been tried without the need for giving tax revenue to charter schools, and actually exists in various forms throughout the country. In Arlington, VA for example, you can send your child to any elementary school in the county. The different schools are set up differently, with different focuses, if I remember correctly. One is a traditional school that appeals to parents who think their children will benefit from that sort of environment; another is an arts focused school, still another focuses on math/science/technology. Google "open enrollment public schools" to find other examples. So I fail to see why we need to shove money towards for-profit educational companies to reconduct an experiment that has already been tried.

And open enrollment is something a lot of parents like. Why does it not spread? Cost issues, I would guess. It mostly exists in municipalities that are fairly geographically contained. It probably would not be economically feasible in Montana, say, because most states in the US are very stingy with money for education. The market that you insist is needed to give you choice is not going to solve the lack of funding issue, is it?

Let's face it; the people behind privatization and market-based reform are in business to make money. That's their goal, and they basically try to steer the political conversation to make extracting taxpayer money from public schools and giving it to charter schools seem a noble and principled thing to do. If they really had noble aims, they'd establish a foundation to fully fund private schools in high poverty areas in the US, and offer any student who wanted it free tuition to attend them. If they really believed in market-based educational solutions but chafed at the regulatory requirements that US schools are subject to, they can take their noble aspirations to Somalia (which currently enrolls only about a third of their children in primary school) and establish a market-based educational system free of the regulations governing education that exist in pretty much every US state.

EDIT: "Spreading best practices": This is a beguiling notion that has been at the bottom of a great deal of school reform effort. Unfortunately, school reform isn't something that is reproducible in the sense of using a cookie cutter and stamping out successful schools one after the other simply by introducing a different curriculum, or hiring different teachers/administrators, or painting the walls a different color. They have been trying for decades to replicate the results of truly outstanding schools like Central Park East, but it's like trying to replicate a Stradivarius. Successful schools that perform better than average consistently over time are grown one at a time, basically. It seems that what is essential is buy-in from all of the people involved: teachers, parents, community members. There has to be a shared, agreed-upon vision of what education means (i.e. what is the school's job? prepare students for employment? for college? teach them the classics? etc.), and there needs to be trust, collaboration, and patience to give the new approach time to bear fruit. In our country, unfortunately, these types of "best practices" hardly ever get spread, because politicians have little patience, and don't see such an old-fashioned approach as one which will garner them votes. So they look for educational gimmicks to set themselves apart.

Posted: May 10, 2013 - 11:00am

Turns out our local High School rocks the plastic!

Newnan HS ranked silver by U.S. News and World Report

Posted: May 9, 2013 - 8:18am

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 11:22pm

aflanigan wrote:

Yes. Economists and reformers (such as Jay Greene) who have been promoting charter schools as an educational solution have turned to test scores as the metric by which they supposedly expose the failure of the public schools, and the superiority of private/charter schools. They inevitably use standardized test scores as a rubric for both teacher and school efficacy. It's probably what led Charles Murray, a school choice advocate, to ponder "If my fellow supporters of charter schools and vouchers can finally be pushed off their obsession with test scores". Where have you been for the past decade or so?

If test score obsession = "market-based" then our entire public school system is "market-based". I think you should drop this line of reasoning before it collapses from the weight of its own silliness.

Lazy8 wrote:

A market-based reform would involve choices by customers (students, parents) driving policy. Not seeing that in the efforts criticized here.

Then I don't think you've actually looked at the main report they cite. It looked at the impact of "increased charter school access on student outcomes in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC". These three cities have all been used as test beds of sorts to try and show off how privatizing education, or increasing choice by promoting charter schools, will allegedly improve education and close the achievement gap between at risk kids and children of well-educated, relatively wealthy parents.

Gosh, a think tank founded by labor unions finds fault with school reform. Who'd have imagined that?

Yes, I read it. I also read the report much of its criticism of charter schools is based on, the Stanford CREDO 2009 study. The CREDO 2009 study did not include New York (that was a separate study, which found significant gains in student outcomes at NYC charter schools). Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana, and Missouri all showed significant gains from their charter schools, while others showed no improvement or were actually worse.

Let's think about that a minute. According to EPI the students improving their educations in places with effective charter schools should abandon that effort, because schools elsewhere are underperforming. Wouldn't a more constructive approach be to look at what the best-performing schools are doing and try to spread best practices?

By the way—the evaluations of those charter schools that these studies used? Student test scores.

There's another evaluation that might merit consideration: parents willingness to enroll their children in charter schools. In most charter schools there are significantly more applications than seats (in DC that number is 22,000—out of about 80,600, 34,673 of whom already attend charter schools). Either the people closest to the issue are real dopes or they know something that isn't reflected in these studies. Maybe the charter schools have fewer incidents of violence or bullying. Maybe the learning experience is richer—kids learn things that aren't on the standardized tests, for instance. I don't know, but I'm not going to stand outside and tell those parents they're wrong.

Oops—that would be a market-based approach. Can't have that.

Other methodologies have been tried when studying charter school results, and they have also shown mixed results, tho generally more-positive than the CREDO report.

Then why have these sorts of market-based solutions (vouchers, charter schools, etc.) been promoted as an overall strategy to improve education in general? They're not being promoted as a forum to evaluate new ideas in education (indeed, public schools have for over a century served as laboratories for various reform efforts). They're being promoted as a means to improve education by their mere existence side by side with public and traditional private schools. They seem to theorize that their presence and support by politicians will foster "competition" that will raise educational outcomes all around.

In a market-based approach if what my kid's school is doing isn't working I can send my kid somewhere else. The market isn't solving the problem, it's allowing me to solve it. Whether the school improves to attract students or not, at least my kid isn't stuck there while it fails. Should I keep my kid in a bad school on principle?

What would that principle be, exactly, and why is it more important than educating my kid?

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 1:50pm

Lazy8 wrote:

So evaluating teachers and administrators in regular old public schools on nothing but student test scores is a "market-based reform"?

Yes. Economists and reformers (such as Jay Greene) who have been promoting charter schools as an educational solution have turned to test scores as the metric by which they supposedly expose the failure of the public schools, and the superiority of private/charter schools. They inevitably use standardized test scores as a rubric for both teacher and school efficacy. It's probably what led Charles Murray, a school choice advocate, to ponder "If my fellow supporters of charter schools and vouchers can finally be pushed off their obsession with test scores". Where have you been for the past decade or so?

Lazy8 wrote:

A market-based reform would involve choices by customers (students, parents) driving policy. Not seeing that in the efforts criticized here.

Then I don't think you've actually looked at the main report they cite. It looked at the impact of "increased charter school access on student outcomes in Chicago, New York City, and Washington DC". These three cities have all been used as test beds of sorts to try and show off how privatizing education, or increasing choice by promoting charter schools, will allegedly improve education and close the achievement gap between at risk kids and children of well-educated, relatively wealthy parents.

Lazy8 wrote:

Markets (your all-purpose boogeyman) are not solutions to problems, they're a forum to evaluate solutions to problems and reward those that work.

Then why have these sorts of market-based solutions (vouchers, charter schools, etc.) been promoted as an overall strategy to improve education in general? They're not being promoted as a forum to evaluate new ideas in education (indeed, public schools have for over a century served as laboratories for various reform efforts). They're being promoted as a means to improve education by their mere existence side by side with public and traditional private schools. They seem to theorize that their presence and support by politicians will foster "competition" that will raise educational outcomes all around.

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 11:13am

aflanigan wrote:

For all of those (including John Stossel) who are fans of the latest fad in education, market-based reform:
Failing the Test

So evaluating teachers and administrators in regular old public schools on nothing but student test scores is a "market-based reform"?

A market-based reform would involve choices by customers (students, parents) driving policy. Not seeing that in the efforts criticized here.

Markets (your all-purpose boogeyman) are not solutions to problems, they're a forum to evaluate solutions to problems and reward those that work.

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 8:02am

miamizsun wrote:

i'm curious as to what they mean by "market-based" reform

are they implying that this has something to do with a free market or freedom of choice?

or is this strictly referring to success or failure at teaching the test?

regards

Google. It's your friend.

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 7:57am

aflanigan wrote:

Not sure I understand your question.

i'm curious as to what they mean by "market-based" reform

are they implying that this has something to do with a free market or freedom of choice?

or is this strictly referring to success or failure at teaching the test?

regards

Posted: May 8, 2013 - 7:39am

miamizsun wrote:

do you think charter schools are "free" market driven?

Not sure I understand your question.

Posted: May 7, 2013 - 3:15pm

aflanigan wrote:

For all of those (including John Stossel) who are fans of the latest fad in education, market-based reform:
Failing the Test

do you think charter schools are "free" market driven?

Posted: May 7, 2013 - 2:51pm

For all of those (including John Stossel) who are fans of the latest fad in education, market-based reform:
Failing the Test

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 6:37am

black321 wrote:

I think what you're saying is....bad teachers arent the issue, too little money isnt the issue....but too many non-essential dumb asses with their hand in the cookie jar is the problem!

we could say that {#Wink}

we've got a system that is severely and openly corrupt

why we would ever expect to get decent results from it is beyond me

time for a peaceful change {#Cheers}

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 6:34am

miamizsun wrote:

politicizing education, no matter how well intentioned or how it is sold to the masses, brings all of the same corruption of our political system or to anything it touches

school administration, curriculum and school employees aren't magically immune

unions are nothing more than a vehicle to lobby/bribe politicians for exception and special privilege (possibly in exchange for votes and/or political support)

they/unions can be (or could have been) a response to employer issues (better working conditions, higher pay, benefits, etc.)

some employers, not all, may have lobbied for special or even monopoly privilege, eliminating competition, no bid contracts or placing higher barriers to entry in business

this political discrimination gives cover to abuse of accountability and could allow them to artificially manipulate wages or conditions

unions have clearly rivaled employers and fueled a nasty battle in buying/influencing corrupt politicians

in effect buying unsustainable largess at the expense of the taxable human livestock and their offspring for generations to come

this rant can be distilled down to a couple of tidbits

elected and appointed political administrators have corrupted our legal system for plunder and personal gain

it all starts and stops there

they've violated their charter and need to be reeled in and held accountable (like say maybe a detailed written contract)

until that happens (defunding, deligitimizing central power) nothing will change

regards

*edit* btw govt controlled schooling is systematized indoctrination and conformity (or helping perpetuate the problem)

I think what you're saying is....bad teachers arent the issue, too little money isnt the issue....but too many non-essential dumb asses with their hand in the cookie jar is the problem!

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 6:18am

kurtster wrote:

D.C. Public Schools Spend Almost $30,000 Per Student

I back of the envelope calculated my district on long island spends about $35,000 per student. I dont believe this is an issue in every community, but it is particularly acute in the Northeast...and I agree on you point about unions/commoditizing the workers. I think unions still can play a role in this country, like in the supermarket/retail industry...but for professionals? And how about those MLB, NFL...unions!

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 5:51am

black321 wrote:

That's agreed. The union's job is to represent the interests of its members. Teachers need to do a better job at directing their unions...to face the reality of local economics and relinquish benefits, not jobs, admit that bad teachers do exist and should be fired...

politicizing education, no matter how well intentioned or how it is sold to the masses, brings all of the same corruption of our political system or to anything it touches

school administration, curriculum and school employees aren't magically immune

unions are nothing more than a vehicle to lobby/bribe politicians for exception and special privilege (possibly in exchange for votes and/or political support)

they/unions can be (or could have been) a response to employer issues (better working conditions, higher pay, benefits, etc.)

some employers, not all, may have lobbied for special or even monopoly privilege, eliminating competition, no bid contracts or placing higher barriers to entry in business

this political discrimination gives cover to abuse of accountability and could allow them to artificially manipulate wages or conditions

unions have clearly rivaled employers and fueled a nasty battle in buying/influencing corrupt politicians

in effect buying unsustainable largess at the expense of the taxable human livestock and their offspring for generations to come

this rant can be distilled down to a couple of tidbits

elected and appointed political administrators have corrupted our legal system for plunder and personal gain

it all starts and stops there

they've violated their charter and need to be reeled in and held accountable (like say maybe a detailed written contract)

until that happens (defunding, deligitimizing central power) nothing will change

regards

*edit* btw govt controlled schooling is systematized indoctrination and conformity (or helping perpetuate the problem)

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 4:18am

sirdroseph wrote:

Absolutely all we have to do is pour more money into our present institutions, doesn't matter how it is being spent or how inefficient the institution is. This has worked marvelously for us in the past, if it ain't broke, why fix it? {#Rolleyes}

Silly me, I keep forgetting how more money is the answer for everything !

Iffen we give the DC schools just a little more money than they are already getting,
then they would be better than a Harvard education !

D.C. Public Schools Spend Almost $30,000 Per Student

If America Spends More Than Most Countries Per Student, Then Why Are Its Schools So Bad?

Posted: May 1, 2013 - 4:04am

kurtster wrote:

So if there is a direct relationship between class size and ease of teaching, then less pay is justified ?

If so, then class size in public schools is a direct reflection of the coresponding wages ? If wages in public schools were lower then the resources (money) could be then spent on more teachers resulting in smaller classes and more effective (easier) teaching ?

I ask these questions because your solutions to better education seems to be focused entirely on (more) dollars and nothing else.

Absolutely all we have to do is pour more money into our present institutions, doesn't matter how it is being spent or how inefficient the institution is. This has worked marvelously for us in the past, if it ain't broke, why fix it? {#Rolleyes}