4 ms·
You can't make the leap between "has subsidy" and "would likely perform more poorly without subsidy". In nearly all cases charter schools outperform public sch
by darawk 11y ago
You can't make the leap between "has subsidy" and "would likely perform more poorly without subsidy".
In nearly all cases charter schools outperform public schools. It may be that this is partially or entirely explained by the factors that you mentioned, but to my knowledge, there is no actual evidence of that.
- ZeroGravitas 11y agoHere's some evidence: https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/unspinning-data-on-new-jersey-charter-schools/ https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/unspinning... There's various other entries on that blog that cover the same topic with graphs and numbers. Basically, once you correct for disabled students, english as a second language, and poverty, the charter schools don't do any better than standard public schools. An interesting question is whether people realise this, and are actually quite happy to throw other kids under the bus to give their own children an advantage.
- pessimizer 11y ago> In nearly all cases charter schools outperform public schools. This is fiction.
- bobwaycott 11y agoThe article cites information that refutes this. Roughly speaking, 50% are equivalent to public schools, a quarter are better, and a quarter are worse. 75% are not better, which is way beyond "nearly all cases", unless 25% is "nearly all" to your reckoning.