5 ms·

Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? My conservative and liber

Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? My conservative and libertarian friends talk this up all the time. However, my understanding is that the whole point is to disrupt the power of sinister teacher unions. Sort of an "Uber for schools", I guess. The thing is... there is no teacher union in my state (my conservative and libertarian friends stare blankly and blink when they learn this). Here in Georgia, the point of charter schools seems to be: (1) Shifting control of schools from the local board level to a state commission, overseen by the state legislature, and (2) Funneling revenue to a number of private (and sometimes for-profit) school management corporations, who shower lots of lobbying dollars on the state legislators in return. To me, it just feels like magic pixie dust. We think it's sinister to privatize our prisons, but doing the same thing to our kids is great because unions (which are already fake news in most parts of the country now). I'm honestly not even sure what their proponents see as being the point... if it's not ideological blind-faith, or a misguided quiet assumption that it will help restore racial segregation in schools.

adpirz 9y ago
Disclaimer: I've spent 5 years working for public charter schools that worked in low-income school districts. I'd encourage you to read this: https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489/maritas_bargain.pdf https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489... This talks about the first major charter network that primarily worked to serve low-income students for whom the achievement gap was large. The idea behind many of these schools is that the standard model, for one reason or another, is not serving these students properly and that adjustments have to be made. Those can take the form of extended school days, double blocks of reading (core to all learning), a focus on wellbeing, and many more. These particular networks are public and not-for-profit, but there are also charter schools that are for-profit as you mentioned. Generally speaking, "charter school" is an umbrella for any school that operates with a charter outside the standard public school, so it encompasses all sorts of models, but the KIPP-style school is one that has really taken off in the last 20 years in many low-income communities. There are also plenty of problems with KIPP and its brethren, but they have made progress in places many haven't.
ptero 9y ago
> Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? With any hot topics it is difficult to remove personal views from the subject, but let me try. The premise of charter schools is that US public school system is rigidly set in a pretty bad state. No change is coming internally (as with any bureaucracy). Good new teachers are very difficult to hire (compensation goes to most senior folks, not most capable). Parents know what schools and teachers give their kids good education, but cannot vote with their wallets. Charter schools provide an alternative and competition. Some examples where this competition works better are: US colleges (expensive but good: many foreigners are coming to study there and pay the exorbitant tuition; few come to US public schools). Finland: letting parents use public money spent on public school tuition for private schools helped Finland school system go from one of the worst to one of the best in one generation. > The thing is... there is no teacher union in my state. What are GAE, PACE and MACE? This is an honest question -- I know nothing about Georgia unions; this is just a google search for "Georgia teachers union"
- moorhosj 9y ago
  > few come to US public schools This is a list of universities with the most international students: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/25-us-universities-most-international-students#survey-answer https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/25-us-univ... The vast majority of them are public schools.
  - ptero 9y ago
    Agreed, but I meant public schools as K-12 schools. Public universities (IMO because they have to compete) are part of my "expensive but good" bucket.
Consultant32452 9y ago
I'm libertarian leaning and can offer my perspective on these issues. I have no problems with unions, but I don't support state protection of them. I suspect if you pressed most libertarians this is how they really feel. It's just in practice, this comes out as being totally against unions. (1) I definitely want to shift control of schools as locally as possible. It's silly to pretend that the needs of an inner city school in NY look a lot like the needs of a rural school in Kentucky. The more closely tied to the community the people making decisions are, the more likely they will be able to adapt to the needs of the students. (2) I'm not just an atheist, I'm a Hitchens is my hero atheist. If I thought I'd get the best over-all life outcomes for my children by sending them to a private for-profit Young Earth Creationist school I would do it in a heart-beat. I don't understand why anyone would care more about the for-profit status of a school than they do about the actual outcomes of the students. I suspect not-for-profit secular schools will provide the best outcomes, but I could be wrong. After the Parkland shooting a bunch of my liberal friends are starting to see the light of day regarding school choice and heading towards the privatization end of the spectrum. It's going to be very difficult to change national policy on school security. It's only slightly less difficult to change state policy. But a hand full of activist parents could very likely get metal detectors, armed guards, etc. at their one school if they were given the freedom to vote with their money. And they would also not have to demand that everyone else make the same choices.

adpirz 9y ago

Disclaimer: I've spent 5 years working for public charter schools that worked in low-income school districts. I'd encourage you to read this: https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489/maritas_bargain.pdf https://mskellyenglish12.weebly.com/uploads/3/0/7/9/30792489... This talks about the first major charter network that primarily worked to serve low-income students for whom the achievement gap was large. The idea behind many of these schools is that the standard model, for one reason or another, is not serving these students properly and that adjustments have to be made. Those can take the form of extended school days, double blocks of reading (core to all learning), a focus on wellbeing, and many more. These particular networks are public and not-for-profit, but there are also charter schools that are for-profit as you mentioned. Generally speaking, "charter school" is an umbrella for any school that operates with a charter outside the standard public school, so it encompasses all sorts of models, but the KIPP-style school is one that has really taken off in the last 20 years in many low-income communities. There are also plenty of problems with KIPP and its brethren, but they have made progress in places many haven't.

ptero 9y ago

> Is it possible to get a cooly-detached, non-ideologically-charged, objective perspective on the purpose and pro's of charter schools? With any hot topics it is difficult to remove personal views from the subject, but let me try. The premise of charter schools is that US public school system is rigidly set in a pretty bad state. No change is coming internally (as with any bureaucracy). Good new teachers are very difficult to hire (compensation goes to most senior folks, not most capable). Parents know what schools and teachers give their kids good education, but cannot vote with their wallets. Charter schools provide an alternative and competition. Some examples where this competition works better are: US colleges (expensive but good: many foreigners are coming to study there and pay the exorbitant tuition; few come to US public schools). Finland: letting parents use public money spent on public school tuition for private schools helped Finland school system go from one of the worst to one of the best in one generation. > The thing is... there is no teacher union in my state. What are GAE, PACE and MACE? This is an honest question -- I know nothing about Georgia unions; this is just a google search for "Georgia teachers union"

moorhosj 9y ago
> few come to US public schools This is a list of universities with the most international students: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/25-us-universities-most-international-students#survey-answer https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/news/25-us-univ... The vast majority of them are public schools.
- ptero 9y ago
  Agreed, but I meant public schools as K-12 schools. Public universities (IMO because they have to compete) are part of my "expensive but good" bucket.

Consultant32452 9y ago

I'm libertarian leaning and can offer my perspective on these issues. I have no problems with unions, but I don't support state protection of them. I suspect if you pressed most libertarians this is how they really feel. It's just in practice, this comes out as being totally against unions. (1) I definitely want to shift control of schools as locally as possible. It's silly to pretend that the needs of an inner city school in NY look a lot like the needs of a rural school in Kentucky. The more closely tied to the community the people making decisions are, the more likely they will be able to adapt to the needs of the students. (2) I'm not just an atheist, I'm a Hitchens is my hero atheist. If I thought I'd get the best over-all life outcomes for my children by sending them to a private for-profit Young Earth Creationist school I would do it in a heart-beat. I don't understand why anyone would care more about the for-profit status of a school than they do about the actual outcomes of the students. I suspect not-for-profit secular schools will provide the best outcomes, but I could be wrong. After the Parkland shooting a bunch of my liberal friends are starting to see the light of day regarding school choice and heading towards the privatization end of the spectrum. It's going to be very difficult to change national policy on school security. It's only slightly less difficult to change state policy. But a hand full of activist parents could very likely get metal detectors, armed guards, etc. at their one school if they were given the freedom to vote with their money. And they would also not have to demand that everyone else make the same choices.