7 ms·

My problem with the charter school discussion is that it is frequently framed in the context of "this charter school is better than this public school." Frankl

My problem with the charter school discussion is that it is frequently framed in the context of "this charter school is better than this public school." Frankly, these comparisons are bullshit. Public schools are given a task that charter schools would never have to even imagine. Public schools must educate ALL children in their districts. Charter schools have the luxury of choosing who attends their schools and who stays after they have been admitted. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Take any single "successful" or "highly rated" charter school in the country and then tell them they must educate all of the kids in the public school district in which their school resides and I doubt we would see the same results. To get into charter schools parents must fill out applications. Right off the bat you have created a pool of potential students who at the very least have parents at home who are active in their children's education. Children like that typically perform better in school regardless of the type of school. So yeah charters can work. But they work not because they schools are better. They work because the students going to them are better.

LanceH 13y ago
The same students do better at charter schools than when they go to a public school though. So it's not just selection bias. Getting away from the masses that have no interest in education is just as important in some places. Sure, that's something that a public school -- bound by law to include everyone -- can't do, but it's no reason to drag others down into the mess that is public schools.
- jedberg 13y ago
  Selection bias. The poor performers that move schools do so because they have involved parents, and involved parents are the #1 indicator of success in school.
  - beat 13y ago
    It's not just selection bias, though. Charters, having distinctive education styles, will be more appropriate for some students and less appropriate for others. The other layer of "selection bias", then, is that parents/children will be more inclined to charters that seem more suitable for their own needs. For example, in MN, we have a number of Somali-language bilingual charters for our massive Somali immigrant population. Fantastic option for Somali immigrant kids. Not so fantastic for other kids. That's not just selection bias on parental involvement, that's appropriate environment for the kids' needs.
  - LanceH 13y ago
    Not just selection bias. Look up how some of them are selected, through lottery. Involved parents sign up kids for the lottery and they end up going to either school randomly. The kids getting into charter schools show more improvement than those going to public schools. Both groups probably outperform their peers in their individual schools. You could argue that charters have a selection bias for more passionate teachers and staff, but that's kind of proving the point of the charter schools.
jedberg 13y ago
I was going to write basically the exact same thing. The comparison isn't fair. Public schools have to accept everyone, charter schools can be selective. The ones with lotteries are self-selecting too, because you have to have an involved parent to even enter the lottery, which means only the kids with "good parents" go to that school, which again biases them towards greater success.
- stevesearer 13y ago
  While the comparison isn't perfectly apples to apples, I don't think it is fair to rule out the possibility that charter schools might do a better job of serving students with so-called "good parents". If it is the case, why is that a bad thing? Do we not want schools that serve the needs of many different groups?
  - troydm 13y ago
    This isn't a comparison between luxury items like ski resorts. Shouldn't we hold the education of the next generation to a higher standard? Shouldn't children have equal access to good schools, regardless of the quality of their parents?
    - stevesearer 13y ago
      The funny thing is that this isn't the case even in the world of public education. In my hometown, students must go to the school that serves the part of town where they live. What happens is that families will move around town to get their student into the public school that serves their needs best.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    No, the point is that when you make a comparison as unfair as this one, you're doing something unjust. It also marks you as a person who is conspicuously dishonest. Seriously, saying it isn't "perfectly"" apples to apples is a gross mischaracterization. And yes, that's a very real form of dishonesty. None of this is to say that anything about public schools, from their founding principles to their day to day administration, is above criticism. That's not the case. But slandering them by way of inappropriate comparisons - then adding to the dishonesty by downplaying just how inappropriate that comparison really is - is wrong.
beat 13y ago
You're wrong. Charter schools do NOT get to select, at least not in Minnesota (and states that allow selectiveness are being dumb). You are right, though, in that you're starting with a pool of students whose parents care enough to look for something better and take an active role in their children's education. You might have a problem with that. If so, I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron.
- DannoHung 13y ago
  So if a kid grows up in an abusive home, fuck him forever because his parents don't give a shit.
  - beat 13y ago
    I grew up in an abusive home with parents who didn't give a shit. So did a lot of successful people.
    - MisterBastahrd 13y ago
      Your anecdote doesn't prove your point.
      - beat 13y ago
        It does, however, disprove yours. edit: More to the point... if I could have attended the fine charter my kids attended, I would have had a better trajectory overall. But more important than the schooling was my innate talent and determination. I'm way over on the nature end of the nature-vs-nurture scale. Bad families and bad schools make the success formula more difficult for kids, but not impossible.
        MisterBastahrd 13y ago
        Apparently not, given that I did not make a point.
      - sageikosa 13y ago
msglenn 13y ago
Ideally we would help ALL students improve, but isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school? Otherwise we create a situation that looks like this: 1. Parents who are involved fight a losing battle to help their kids succeed in a school that is simply not equipped to educate them. 2. Those students fail to achieve in traditional ways, reinforcing the idea that it's pointless to try. 3. Repeat until everyone suffers from an acute case of learned helplessness.
- dopamean 13y ago
  > isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school? Not if the funding for the more rigorous school is coming from the same pool of funds that could have gone to the public school.
stevesearer 13y ago
If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that? Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks? That way you can target the specific needs of a smaller group and work to make each succeed rather than doing a mediocre job of trying to meet the incredibly diverse needs of a much larger group.
- jfoutz 13y ago
  That sounds really expensive.
  - rubinelli 13y ago
    Having a poorly educated workforce is more expensive than most of the options, but you'll only notice that twenty years later.
- betterunix 13y ago
  "If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that?" We do not want to have a society where an elite, educated aristocracy rules over an uneducated serf class. That means we need to educate everyone, including people who have less potential. "Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks?" 1. Who is going to pay for it? You will need more teachers, and you will need to pay for a system for dividing students. 2. Politics will come into play. The moment you divide students by anything other than their age, you face accusations of bias. Education is highly political; here is an example that should resonate with the HN crowd: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/nyregion/software-engineering-school-was-teachers-idea-but-its-been-done-citys-way.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/nyregion/software-enginee...
  - stevesearer 13y ago
    It if pretty unfair to characterize private school as being some sort of bastion where elites get away from the "uneducated serf class". My private school experience (both attending, and then teaching at one) has shown me that many private school students come from working class families that are anything but elite.
tonyrice 13y ago
I went to a charter school during my last two years of high school and it was probably one of the most important choices I have made to date. The charter school I went to used a lottery based system that got students in. This was kind of a negative thing in my opinion. For me the traditional public educational process was in a way meaningless. I have always been self-taught and the charter school I went to allowed me to. In high school things were kind of going downhill for me until I made the decision of going to a charter school. People learn in many different ways. There were people at the charter school I went to that really didn't care all that much so their experience was a lot different from mine. I complete agree with you when you say that you don't like how people state "this charter school is better than this public school." People learn differently than others. The traditional route is perfect for some and charter schools are better for others. Not all charter schools are the same along with public schools.
zwieback 13y ago
The article explains fairly well what this study does to counter your point. The charter advantage seems to be fairly narrow: urban overcrowded areas. However, in those areas there does seem to be an advantage and it appears to be due to longer hours.

LanceH 13y ago

The same students do better at charter schools than when they go to a public school though. So it's not just selection bias. Getting away from the masses that have no interest in education is just as important in some places. Sure, that's something that a public school -- bound by law to include everyone -- can't do, but it's no reason to drag others down into the mess that is public schools.

jedberg 13y ago
Selection bias. The poor performers that move schools do so because they have involved parents, and involved parents are the #1 indicator of success in school.
- beat 13y ago
  It's not just selection bias, though. Charters, having distinctive education styles, will be more appropriate for some students and less appropriate for others. The other layer of "selection bias", then, is that parents/children will be more inclined to charters that seem more suitable for their own needs. For example, in MN, we have a number of Somali-language bilingual charters for our massive Somali immigrant population. Fantastic option for Somali immigrant kids. Not so fantastic for other kids. That's not just selection bias on parental involvement, that's appropriate environment for the kids' needs.
- LanceH 13y ago
  Not just selection bias. Look up how some of them are selected, through lottery. Involved parents sign up kids for the lottery and they end up going to either school randomly. The kids getting into charter schools show more improvement than those going to public schools. Both groups probably outperform their peers in their individual schools. You could argue that charters have a selection bias for more passionate teachers and staff, but that's kind of proving the point of the charter schools.

jedberg 13y ago

I was going to write basically the exact same thing. The comparison isn't fair. Public schools have to accept everyone, charter schools can be selective. The ones with lotteries are self-selecting too, because you have to have an involved parent to even enter the lottery, which means only the kids with "good parents" go to that school, which again biases them towards greater success.

stevesearer 13y ago
While the comparison isn't perfectly apples to apples, I don't think it is fair to rule out the possibility that charter schools might do a better job of serving students with so-called "good parents". If it is the case, why is that a bad thing? Do we not want schools that serve the needs of many different groups?
- troydm 13y ago
  This isn't a comparison between luxury items like ski resorts. Shouldn't we hold the education of the next generation to a higher standard? Shouldn't children have equal access to good schools, regardless of the quality of their parents?
  - stevesearer 13y ago
    The funny thing is that this isn't the case even in the world of public education. In my hometown, students must go to the school that serves the part of town where they live. What happens is that families will move around town to get their student into the public school that serves their needs best.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  No, the point is that when you make a comparison as unfair as this one, you're doing something unjust. It also marks you as a person who is conspicuously dishonest. Seriously, saying it isn't "perfectly"" apples to apples is a gross mischaracterization. And yes, that's a very real form of dishonesty. None of this is to say that anything about public schools, from their founding principles to their day to day administration, is above criticism. That's not the case. But slandering them by way of inappropriate comparisons - then adding to the dishonesty by downplaying just how inappropriate that comparison really is - is wrong.

beat 13y ago

You're wrong. Charter schools do NOT get to select, at least not in Minnesota (and states that allow selectiveness are being dumb). You are right, though, in that you're starting with a pool of students whose parents care enough to look for something better and take an active role in their children's education. You might have a problem with that. If so, I suggest you read Harrison Bergeron.

DannoHung 13y ago
So if a kid grows up in an abusive home, fuck him forever because his parents don't give a shit.
- beat 13y ago
  I grew up in an abusive home with parents who didn't give a shit. So did a lot of successful people.
  - MisterBastahrd 13y ago
    Your anecdote doesn't prove your point.
    - beat 13y ago
      It does, however, disprove yours. edit: More to the point... if I could have attended the fine charter my kids attended, I would have had a better trajectory overall. But more important than the schooling was my innate talent and determination. I'm way over on the nature end of the nature-vs-nurture scale. Bad families and bad schools make the success formula more difficult for kids, but not impossible.
      - MisterBastahrd 13y ago
        Apparently not, given that I did not make a point.
    - sageikosa 13y ago

msglenn 13y ago

Ideally we would help ALL students improve, but isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school? Otherwise we create a situation that looks like this: 1. Parents who are involved fight a losing battle to help their kids succeed in a school that is simply not equipped to educate them. 2. Those students fail to achieve in traditional ways, reinforcing the idea that it's pointless to try. 3. Repeat until everyone suffers from an acute case of learned helplessness.

dopamean 13y ago
> isn't it better that we give the kids with more involved parents a fighting chance by letting them opt into a more rigorous school? Not if the funding for the more rigorous school is coming from the same pool of funds that could have gone to the public school.

stevesearer 13y ago

If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that? Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks? That way you can target the specific needs of a smaller group and work to make each succeed rather than doing a mediocre job of trying to meet the incredibly diverse needs of a much larger group.

jfoutz 13y ago
That sounds really expensive.
- rubinelli 13y ago
  Having a poorly educated workforce is more expensive than most of the options, but you'll only notice that twenty years later.
betterunix 13y ago
"If educating the masses at a public school is so much more difficult, then why do we even try that?" We do not want to have a society where an elite, educated aristocracy rules over an uneducated serf class. That means we need to educate everyone, including people who have less potential. "Shouldn't we work to break up the student population into smaller, more manageable chunks?" 1. Who is going to pay for it? You will need more teachers, and you will need to pay for a system for dividing students. 2. Politics will come into play. The moment you divide students by anything other than their age, you face accusations of bias. Education is highly political; here is an example that should resonate with the HN crowd: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/nyregion/software-engineering-school-was-teachers-idea-but-its-been-done-citys-way.html?pagewanted=all https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/nyregion/software-enginee...
- stevesearer 13y ago
  It if pretty unfair to characterize private school as being some sort of bastion where elites get away from the "uneducated serf class". My private school experience (both attending, and then teaching at one) has shown me that many private school students come from working class families that are anything but elite.

tonyrice 13y ago

I went to a charter school during my last two years of high school and it was probably one of the most important choices I have made to date. The charter school I went to used a lottery based system that got students in. This was kind of a negative thing in my opinion. For me the traditional public educational process was in a way meaningless. I have always been self-taught and the charter school I went to allowed me to. In high school things were kind of going downhill for me until I made the decision of going to a charter school. People learn in many different ways. There were people at the charter school I went to that really didn't care all that much so their experience was a lot different from mine. I complete agree with you when you say that you don't like how people state "this charter school is better than this public school." People learn differently than others. The traditional route is perfect for some and charter schools are better for others. Not all charter schools are the same along with public schools.

zwieback 13y ago

The article explains fairly well what this study does to counter your point. The charter advantage seems to be fairly narrow: urban overcrowded areas. However, in those areas there does seem to be an advantage and it appears to be due to longer hours.