5 ms·

The parent comment complained about operating schools like prisons. Charters can't assume attendance, so they often perform better from the perspective of stand

The parent comment complained about operating schools like prisons. Charters can't assume attendance, so they often perform better from the perspective of standardized testing and student approval. Charters tend to do better because of the crushing regulation and lack of meaningful accountability of the public schools (if you're British: what you'd call state schools). Some people are under the mistaken impression that charters perform better due to larger budgets, but typically the well-performing ones cost the state less than state schools, and cost the parents nothing.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Charters tend to do better because of the crushing regulation and lack of meaningful accountability of the public schools No, they tend to “do better” because and to the extent they cherry-pick students, either by more restrictive admissions, by being more free to remove students that being their aggregate results down, by not having mandates to serve special needs students, or by selecting for students with parents who are higher socioeconomic status and more involved and place higher priority on education, which they often do simply by being a non-default choice requiring active choice that is less conveniently located than the default-by-residence-location public school. Charters (which can be publicly or privately operated) have strictly less accountability than regular, non-charter public schools.
- the_af 7y ago
  Not from the US here: what is a publicly operated charter school? I'm very confused now :( Or is any school outside the official educational program a "charter school"?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Or is any school outside the official educational program a "charter school"? Charter schools are schools within the official public education system (whether operated by the public authority or some other entity) which possess a charter exempting them from some of the otherwise-applicable provisions of that system. There are also private (both for- and non-profit) schools outside the official public education system (in some jurisdictions, these may get partial public subsidies for students via vouchers.)
- lucaspm98 7y ago
  They generally have a lottery system that is completely random, and have to provide all services for special needs students that public school does. However, some of their differences in test scores could be attributed to simply requiring a bare minimum or effort from parents to research and apply for their children.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > No, they tend to “do better” because and to the extent they cherry-pick students, either by more restrictive admissions, by being more free to remove students that being their aggregate results down. This is another common misconception (thank public union messaging). AFAIK Most charters do admissions by lottery, and the applicants do not tend to differ too much demographically from the nearby public schools. Now, there is some selection bias in that only parents who are paying enough attention to know what school their kid is enrolling in would even think to enroll, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their home life is more conducive to education.
the_af 7y ago
I'm not British but from a country where public schools == state schools. I know in the US "public" means something else, but I often end up confusing myself. This is what I don't understand (correct me where I'm wrong): - Public schools are allegedly too regulated / lack accountability (or so I understood from your comment). They receive public funding. - Charter schools are less regulated (is this a good thing?) and more accountable (to whom?). They also receive public funding. Are charter schools operated for profit? I agree more accountability is a good thing, bit I'm seriously unconvinced about less regulation. But even then, if these traits are positive, why not handle public schools like this and get rid of charter schools? Education is both a right and a strategic asset of any country. If a way of doing regulations/accountability is shown to be the best, why not use this in public education?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Charter schools are less regulated (is this a good thing?) and more accountable (to whom?). They are definitely less regulated (that is literally what the “charter” refers to: they are publicly-funded schools with charters granting exemptions from the usual requirements for such schools), but are less accountable as a direct result of being less regulated. > Are charter schools operated for profit? Often, but not always. Charters may be private for-profit, private non-profit, or public. > But even then, if these traits are positive, why not handle public schools like this and get rid of charter schools? Sure, the idea of charter schools (well, the idea for those that don't oppose public education and see it as a tool to dismantle it) is to enable experimentation, identify things that work, and then apply them more generally. Scaling up things done in “successful” charter schools (whether in wider charter implementations or by copying things that seem to work in public schools) never seems to work, and the fairly obvious reason is that (like most other variation in school outcomes) the “success” of charter schools that seem to be getting good results has nothing to do with teaching, and everything to do with student selection.
  - the_af 7y ago
    Thanks for the explanation (this and your other comment explaining public/private/charter). It clarifies a lot of things. It seems charter schools are something I would oppose in my country (and they exist in some form, now that I think about it). I come from a country where while public/state education is under attack from the usual suspects, it's historically one of our core values, one we feel strongly about.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Charters tend to do better because of the crushing regulation and lack of meaningful accountability of the public schools No, they tend to “do better” because and to the extent they cherry-pick students, either by more restrictive admissions, by being more free to remove students that being their aggregate results down, by not having mandates to serve special needs students, or by selecting for students with parents who are higher socioeconomic status and more involved and place higher priority on education, which they often do simply by being a non-default choice requiring active choice that is less conveniently located than the default-by-residence-location public school. Charters (which can be publicly or privately operated) have strictly less accountability than regular, non-charter public schools.

the_af 7y ago
Not from the US here: what is a publicly operated charter school? I'm very confused now :( Or is any school outside the official educational program a "charter school"?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Or is any school outside the official educational program a "charter school"? Charter schools are schools within the official public education system (whether operated by the public authority or some other entity) which possess a charter exempting them from some of the otherwise-applicable provisions of that system. There are also private (both for- and non-profit) schools outside the official public education system (in some jurisdictions, these may get partial public subsidies for students via vouchers.)
lucaspm98 7y ago
They generally have a lottery system that is completely random, and have to provide all services for special needs students that public school does. However, some of their differences in test scores could be attributed to simply requiring a bare minimum or effort from parents to research and apply for their children.
microcolonel 7y ago
> No, they tend to “do better” because and to the extent they cherry-pick students, either by more restrictive admissions, by being more free to remove students that being their aggregate results down. This is another common misconception (thank public union messaging). AFAIK Most charters do admissions by lottery, and the applicants do not tend to differ too much demographically from the nearby public schools. Now, there is some selection bias in that only parents who are paying enough attention to know what school their kid is enrolling in would even think to enroll, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their home life is more conducive to education.

the_af 7y ago

I'm not British but from a country where public schools == state schools. I know in the US "public" means something else, but I often end up confusing myself. This is what I don't understand (correct me where I'm wrong): - Public schools are allegedly too regulated / lack accountability (or so I understood from your comment). They receive public funding. - Charter schools are less regulated (is this a good thing?) and more accountable (to whom?). They also receive public funding. Are charter schools operated for profit? I agree more accountability is a good thing, bit I'm seriously unconvinced about less regulation. But even then, if these traits are positive, why not handle public schools like this and get rid of charter schools? Education is both a right and a strategic asset of any country. If a way of doing regulations/accountability is shown to be the best, why not use this in public education?

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Charter schools are less regulated (is this a good thing?) and more accountable (to whom?). They are definitely less regulated (that is literally what the “charter” refers to: they are publicly-funded schools with charters granting exemptions from the usual requirements for such schools), but are less accountable as a direct result of being less regulated. > Are charter schools operated for profit? Often, but not always. Charters may be private for-profit, private non-profit, or public. > But even then, if these traits are positive, why not handle public schools like this and get rid of charter schools? Sure, the idea of charter schools (well, the idea for those that don't oppose public education and see it as a tool to dismantle it) is to enable experimentation, identify things that work, and then apply them more generally. Scaling up things done in “successful” charter schools (whether in wider charter implementations or by copying things that seem to work in public schools) never seems to work, and the fairly obvious reason is that (like most other variation in school outcomes) the “success” of charter schools that seem to be getting good results has nothing to do with teaching, and everything to do with student selection.
- the_af 7y ago
  Thanks for the explanation (this and your other comment explaining public/private/charter). It clarifies a lot of things. It seems charter schools are something I would oppose in my country (and they exist in some form, now that I think about it). I come from a country where while public/state education is under attack from the usual suspects, it's historically one of our core values, one we feel strongly about.