Hello, I hope July is progressing well for all. My husband who will officially graduate next week may have an opportunity to teach in a Charter School setting. I would be interested in any general impressions of this type of setting. It differs greatly from our local public schools. Thank you again for all the kind words and direction. Hille
I have been involved with charter schools in California for the past three years and also have contact with charter school directors in Arizona. My four children attend a charter school. The charter school situation differs greatly between states, so knowing which state you are in would help in getting accurate information ot you. In a nutshell, charter schools are envisioned as public schools that offer parents and students an alternative to the regular district schools. As public schools, they are non-sectarian and do not charge tuition. Charters can be started by local educators, non-profit consortia, parents, civic leaders and, in some cases, universities or for-profit institutions. Charter schools are supposed to be freed from many of the education code regulations that bind the operations of other public schools. In exchange for this freedom, they operate under a market-driven philosophy that includes the possibility of closure if they do not meet the needs of their population. In other words, if the students perform poorly, or if the school is poorly run, the school could be shut down. This level of accountability does not exist for regular public schools (at least in California). The idea is that competition within the public school systems will make charters seek for innovative and better ways to do things and that the other public schools will improve under the influence of competition. Charter schools are a method of educational reform that offers parents the opprotunity to choose the type of education that their children receive without the cost of private school and without the political baggage that vouchers bring. Research is just emerging on charters and the evidence is mixed. However, charters are showing to be extremely successful with lower income and minority students, which defeats the argument that charters were going to be segregationist schools for upper middle class white kids. Where charters are allowed to operate as envisioned, they are doing very well. Charters are vehemently opposed by educational bureaucrats and teachers unions, which do not appreciate the idea of competition messing with their monopoly. Recent research out of Claremont Graduate University has shown that some charters were shut down because of roadblocks thrown at them by local or state education agencies, not becuase of low achievement or mismanagement. Union-controlled legislators in many states are attempting to saddle charters with tons of regulations, thus making them virtually identical to other public schools (and defeating the purpose of their exisitence in the first place). The idea is to regulate charters out of existence and be able to state, "Well, we gave you charters and they didn't work, so now give us more money to apply more band-aids to our system." This is exactly what the voucher proponents are counting on. Although I have painted a rather bleak picture, I would definately encourage your husband to pursue teaching in a charter school. If he is an innovative teacher, who prefers to think "out of the box," and wants the opprtunity to be responsible for his own curriculum and instructional decisions (rather than having to follow a scripted textbook adopted by a panel of administrators), he should love teaching in a charter school. I hope that this info is useful to you. Tony
While the problem is certainly more serious with the voucher issue, Charter Schools also present a very grave problem to the community. Allow me to explain. I live in an area with a certain public school. It is well thought of and has a very large (6,000 students in high school) population. They employ about 600 full time faculty (in the district, not just the high school) and probably an equal number of support staff. Now, lets say that a Charter School opens up down the road and the parents of 100 children decide they want to try this new school. Take 100 children out of the public school and what happens? You excess 5-10 teachers, support staff probably stays the same, bond payments, interest, insurance, maintenance, etc. all pay the same. But the district now has money going out to fund the charter school, so the overall tax rate goes up. And, don't forget the teachers get severance pay. Now, year two, 50 students return because they found it not to their liking. Now the district has to hire new teachers to replace those that were let go. That increases the budget and again, up goes the tax rate. Now, year three, 50 come back in high school, but 100 leave in elementary grades for the new voucher program. Hire new teachers in HS, let primary teachers go, keep the same fixed costs, reduce the income because the voucher school is now pulling out funds. And, how does your school board budget when they don't know the expected attendance? Our district is at the $100 million a year mark, and the shifting of 100, 200, 300 students (less than 5% of the high school) can cause massive changes. And, keep in mind that private schools don't have to take anyone who wants to go. That means all the special ed students, emotionally neglected, slow learners, non-english speaking will remain in the school district. Add to that problem the "testing" that is going on and proposed by the current administration. While it may be in vogue to blame the school district for everything, as the number of good students leave and the number of problems remain, the scores will drop. If you tie the state reimbursement to scores, you lose that revenue stream, which means an increase in general school taxes. It isn't all that rosey..... Wes
Wes: While the problem is certainly more serious with the voucher issue, Charter Schools also present a very grave problem to the community. Tony: We'll see-please read below. Wes: I live in an area with a certain public school. It is well thought of and has a very large (6,000 students in high school) population. They employ about 600 full time faculty (in the district, not just the high school) and probably an equal number of support staff. Tony: 6,000 students in one high school sounds massive to me (that is about three times the size of a typical California high school). 600 employees may be appropriate for the district, depending upon its size. How many schools and students are served by the district? Wes: Now, lets say that a Charter School opens up down the road and the parents of 100 children decide they want to try this new school. Take 100 children out of the public school and what happens? You excess 5-10 teachers, support staff probably stays the same, bond payments, interest, insurance, maintenance, etc. all pay the same. But the district now has money going out to fund the charter school, so the overall tax rate goes up. And, don't forget the teachers get severance pay. Tony: Two problems with your reasoning here: First, charter schools ARE public schools so there would be no children taken "out of the public school". They would simply be transferring from one public school to another. Second, in most districts, any teacher is able (but not compelled) to transfer to the charter school (and back). Third, unless the school has a 1 to 10 teacher ratio, there is no way that 100 students equals 10 teachers. Fourth, your entire assumption rests upon the fact that there will be absolutely no growth in the student population. Has your community really sustained a 0% growth during the past decade? The three local school districts in my area have experienced yearly growth equaling several times more than the 100 students in your example. They cannot build schools fast enough to accommodate the growth and most schools here have as many (or more) portables than real classrooms. The hiring of new teachers would occur with or without charter schools, so your scenario does not really make your case. Wes: Now, year two, 50 students return because they found it not to their liking. Now the district has to hire new teachers to replace those that were let go. That increases the budget and again, up goes the tax rate. Tony: I have been researching charter schools for three years and have yet to encounter any research that shows that the presence of charter schools have cause tax rates to increase. Teachers unions and educational bureaucrats often use this scare tactic (along with the ridiculous claim that charters "take money away from the public schools"), always without a shred of data to back up their claims. If you have access to some actual data showing tax increases as a direct result of charter schools, please share it with us. Again, whenever a district builds a new school, they hire new teachers or have teachers from existing district schools transfer. The fact that this is a charter school scenario is different only in that the 50 students had the choice to return-an option not given to them in the regular school system. Anyway, a charter school that loses half its enrollment in the first year will likely not be around in the second. The same certainly cannot be said about regular district schools-that level of market-driven accountability does not exist for them. Wes: Now, year three, 50 come back in high school, but 100 leave in elementary grades for the new voucher program. Hire new teachers in HS, let primary teachers go, keep the same fixed costs, reduce the income because the voucher school is now pulling out funds. Tony: Since this discussion is about charters, not vouchers, this point is irrelevant. Charter schools were supposed to be the compromise that public education accepted in place of vouchers, since charters do not come with the political and religious issues that so distress the anti-voucher crowd. My point is that if "educrats" and union-controlled legislators are allowed to regulate charters out of existence, then the pro-voucher folks will have plenty of ammunition to move forward with their agenda. Wes: And, how does your school board budget when they don't know the expected attendance? Our district is at the $100 million a year mark, and the shifting of 100, 200, 300 students (less than 5% of the high school) can cause massive changes. Tony: Really, now, school boards must make this kind of decision all of the time. E.g., if a new housing development causes a population imbalance within the district, difficult decisions regarding realignment of school boundaries and resources must be made. The real question is, If the parents of 100, 200 or 300 students are moving their children out of the existing schools, then should not the school board look into these schools to see why? Wes: And, keep in mind that private schools don't have to take anyone who wants to go. That means all the special ed students, emotionally neglected, slow learners, non-english speaking will remain in the school district. Tony: Back to square one…if you are under the impression that charter schools are private schools, then your entire argument crumbles. Charter schools ARE public schools that must admit any "special ed students, emotionally neglected, slow learners, non-English speaking" child who wishes to attend. My children's charter school has a higher than average percentage of these students, compared to the other local public schools. Recent research conducted by California State University Los Angeles demonstrates that these "challenged" students actually do much better in charter schools than in regular public schools. The fact that private schools can be selective is irrelevant-charter schools can't, since they are public schools. Wes: Add to that problem the "testing" that is going on and proposed by the current administration. While it may be in vogue to blame the school district for everything, as the number of good students leave and the number of problems remain, the scores will drop. If you tie the state reimbursement to scores, you lose that revenue stream, which means an increase in general school taxes. Tony: I am in complete agreement with you here. I also believe that high stakes testing is undesirable for many reasons and that teachers are routinely blamed for many things that are outside of their control. In my daughters' (charter) school, the population is predominately (75%) minority and low income. Many of the students are dropouts or those who "fell between the cracks" of the overcrowded and impersonal local public schools. They flourish at the charter school. Our local schools have a 28% college going rate (the charter school has nearly 100%). Of those 28%, 8 of 10 need English/reading remediation in college and 90% need math remediation. Wes: It isn't all that rosey..... Tony: You are absolutely right-our current public education system is definitely not rosy. That is why educational reform and choice, such as charter schools are necessary.
Charter schools are a good start and private schools are even better .I would like to see some data on the homeschooling movement
Well, I used to teach in a Charter school. Honestly, it was not your typical school environment. It was located in a locked-down facility for delinquent youth. They made up the majority of the student body, as they were required to attend school. There was also a class of "outside kids" that only came to the facility to attend school and left afterwards like a regular school. My impressions of teaching the locked up kids... Well, lets just say that after one of them attacked me, slammed me up against the wall and later threatened to hunt down my family... (by the way, while he was throwing me up against the wall, I got a good hold on him, and with all the proper protocol, restrained him on the floor until help arrived. Nothing was really hurt on either of us, except a good scrape on my back.) Not my favorite place to be. The other group though was a little different. Some of them were there because they had to be (also part of court orders). But some were there because they had really screwed up in the early years of high school and had little chance of ever graduating from a traditional high school (they would be 22 or 23 before they would graduate). The charter school gave them an opportunity to get an education in a time frame that was more realistic. Some of them could do it in one school year - with lots of really hard work. Some it would take 2 years. Each student was different. Though some didn't care, there were some who really wanted to learn. I didn't mind dealing with the complainers to help those who wanted to change the direction of their lives. In short, my experience with charter schools was positive. It is challenging, frustrating and demanding (like any job, I suppose). But you have a good chance to make a real difference in some kids lives. just my thoughts and experiences. clint
Mike, There has been quite a bit of research published about homeschooling during the past two decades. Although homeschooling environments differ from excellent to scary, the overall data supports the idea that homeschooled children do at least as well (usually better) than public schooled children on academic achievement tests. Homeschooled children also tend to be successful in subsequent college studies. There is no data whatsoever to support the idea that homeschooled children suffer socially compared to more traditionally schooled children (this is usually the biggest fear about homeschooling). Tony Pina Adjunct Faculty of Education California State University, San Bernardino
School vouchers I thought this would be an appropriate time to chime in on the school voucher thing. I don't see how anyone can make a good argument against school vouchers. The thing we are looking for is for our children to get the best education they possible. It seems that some of the sentiments here are "Well it's ok for them to get a better education, but not if it means it might cost more." This is sad. In life, there are a couple things that I have learned. 1. When there is competition in an industry, there is a higher level of quality than when there is not. School vouchers provide this competition. 2. Where there is demand, there WILL be supply. Once we have accepted the notion that the United States is responsible for paying for our education, why does seem so wrong to let citizens decide where their kids will go to school? Further, how does it make sense that my kids go to a private school, and my taxes are still spent for public school? I think our schools are in sad shape. The reading, writing, and math skills are terrible. Sure, there are good schools that provide great educations, but each child does not have access to them. With vouchers, they would. If a public school thought that it would be jeopardy if vouchers became a reality, I say " Be one of the schools that people choose."
Darren, You make some compelling points. The biggest voucher opponents are, of course, the teachers unions, Union bosses are afraid that vouchers would threaten the stranglehold that they maintain in the public education arena. This is particularly true in California--where I live. Vouchers provide a level of parental choice and control in education that is very frightening to career education bureaucrats. I feel that we should offers as many educational options as possible (e.g. charter schools, vouchers, distance learning programs, magnet schools, etc.) This country thrives on competition and innovation. Tony
Re: School vouchers Although I somewhat agree in theory, there are some problems with your approach. Public schools are mandated to provide education to all students. They will never compete with a private school who can pick and choose who to admit. This is the same principal as requiring high admission standards at prestigious universities, the higher quality students result in higher quality education. Not only for the fact that the educator can focus on more difficult and advanced concepts but also the students will teach and push each other. Vouchers will likely amplify the opposite of this in public schools. Also, while the middle class may now (in the stated scenario) be able to passably afford private schools, what about the bright kids in a less advantageous situation? Like I have said, I have mixed feelings on this, and recommend everyone to revisit their appraisal of the situation. Regards, Tony
First, Don't think that that are not these same behavioral challenges at private schools. This, and not academic performance is usually the only reason whay a student would be askefd not to return. Secondly, here are some data in my local area: I pay $4500 for each of my 2 kids to go to private school. ( this is the most expensive school in the area) In the worst, poorest district in my area, $8300 is allocated per child. There is more than enough to educated the lesser advantaged child. Lets not for get that where there is demand, there will be supply: If there is a demand for the lower cost education, trust that schools will pop up. There more schools, the more competition. The more competition, the higher the quality. I actually heard someone say, "Instead of doing away with the old system, why not fix it?" What is this attachment to a system that generally fails us. The goal is to have highly motivated and educated children, not to have a successful puplic school system. Then someone argued that vouceres would take books and desks away from the remaining kids. WRONG: Actually, they will ensure the books and desks go wherever the kids go. I am not proposing taking education funding way, I am saying let the amount allocated to educate my children go where they are actually being educated.
Darren, while it may seem that your private school tuition will pay the cost in public school, or at least that it should, it won't. There are a number of reasons: 1. Your public school does not have to accept every child that applies. Take out the expense of special education, reading support, early intervention, psychological services, etc., and the costs might begin to approximate each other. 2. The public school provides bus transportation to all in the district, even if they are going to church sponsored, or private schools. The private school does not have this expense. 3. The private school will traditionally pay their employees less. While you can argue that you are overpaying teachers in the public school, the fact is that they are far from being overpaid and those in private school are either (1) new teachers who can't find a position in the public system, (2) unable for other reasons to find a position, (3) looking for a teaching position for a year or two until something in their life happens according to plan, (4) they don't need the money because they have a spouse who has a significant income. Back when this thread started I made a point, and I would like to do it again. If you are going to start allowing the parents to pick and choose the school and take the money with them, it will be impossible for the public school to plan for future needs and will ultimately result in higher tax bills for everyone. The argument that it will make the schools more accountable doesn't hold water, since the school district still has fixed costs that won't suddenly disappear along with the students who use the vouchers. Wes (for the record, my wife is a Reading Specialist who works with early intervention and special needs children in a local intermediate school. She has been doing this for 19+ years. She has a BA, MA, MSed and special certifications in reading. And, this year, her 21st in the district, she will finally get to $60,000 a year. And today, July 30th, when the temperature is expected to reach 98 degrees here in New York, she will be at the school working with her support team in assessing needs for the 160 children in the program for next year. And, she is also monitoring the summer reading program at the middle school which sends students to her school.... so, please don't tell me that she is overpaid or has the summers off.)
Wes, You have reason to be proud of your wife's accomplishments. As a dedicated public school teacher who is sacrificing comfort and high income to be a public school teacher, she obviously is motivated by a concern for children rather than "filthy lucre". Although this thread was started as a discussion of charter schools, you have commented on charters, vouchers and private schools as though they were the same thing. Vouchers and private schools are (or can be) related, but charters are a completely different thing. Charter schools must accept all special ed students who apply, just like any other public schools. Many private schools, as you correctly state, are not bound by this obligation. I am a teacher educator and have known and taught many private school teachers. While your characterization may be correct for some of them, to insinuate that all private school teachers fall into one of your four categories is a gross error. If private school teachers were second rate, as you insinuate, their students would be unsuccessful in their subsequent college experience. Any cursory look at college acceptance and completion rates by private schooled students shows that this is not the case. In areas that have allowed parent choice, whether it be via charter or voucher, there has not been any documented instances where it has become "impossible for the public school to plan for future needs and will ultimately result in higher tax bills for everyone". Charters have been around for over a decade--vouchers at least as long. Your theory of increasing taxes has not been validated by any real world data. Just because school districts have "fixed costs" (just like any other business) does nothing to invalidate the idea that competition in the public school arena would increase accountability and quality. It is already working in several places, such as Arizona, were failing schools have had to woo students back from charters and homeschooling. The only way to do so was to improve the quality of their schools, which they did. School districts have so many sources of income outside of student ADA that educational choice will certainly not cause them to shut down. By the way, much of the expense of school districts (and in California the hugely bloated county offices of education) is not nearly as "fixed" as you may be led to believe. I have been in thei field of education for over 15 years and am a public school teacher myself. Like you, I am a great believer in public schools; however, supporting public education is not the same thing as wholeheartedly endorsing a flawed public school system. Tony
