4 ms·
Charter school grad here. From a school which often came out as the top school in the state on standardized tests, in a high income suburb in a state with an al
by menssen 12y ago
Charter school grad here. From a school which often came out as the top school in the state on standardized tests, in a high income suburb in a state with an already strong public education system (MN).
Anecdotal observations:
From what I could tell, the success of the school was due to three things:
1. Parents who had available time, money, and energy to devote to the school. This would likely be less true in a lower income area, but as has been mentioned elsewhere, could account for higher average performance of schools that parents actively chose to put their kids in, regardless of location.
2. Excellent staffing, mostly due to the attractiveness of working in an environment with more freedom to innovate.
3. That the environment was different enough from the huge suburban public schools nearby that some students would perform better in that kind of environment.
One other thing I noticed that I haven't heard mentioned before, which is a situation that is unique to looking at the upper end of public schools and income brackets rather than the lower: the school I went to was not good at playing the college prep game. All the courses were difficult, so nobody had any "honors" courses on their transcript. GPAs were generally lower. Fewer extracurricular activities were available because of the size of the school. These facts resulted in a lower number of students going on to prestigious post-secondary institutions than you would expect from an otherwise high performing school.
ALL of these observations point to the conclusion that Charter schools are really just an "alternative", and naturally some alternatives will be an improvement and some will be a failure.
I like this article because it indicates that charter schools specifically help marginalized groups (black, poor), which fits nicely with the idea that having alternative environments in general is good for some students, and also matches my personal experience. (I promise this is the only time I will ever claim "white male nerd" as a marginalized group.)
- NoPiece 12y agoCharter schools may not be a panacea for low income neighborhoods. But there are a lot of low income parents who do really care and can devote time and energy to education. For those families, charter schools can change lives, so lets give them that option.
- themartorana 12y agoI agree, and I disagree. In most cases (each state is different) the charter school is paid a stipend per pupil from the local school district. Here in Philadelphia, and in other places, the sheer amount of charter schools pulls significant money out of public schools, which are already almost destitute. I love the idea of a child getting a chance that they wouldn't normally have. But I wonder if it's at the expense of children of uneducated or uninvolved parents? The one thing you can never do is blame the child for the parents' level of involvement. But it seems this may be punishing them doubly. It's a tough nut to crack...
- jack-r-abbit 12y agoHere in the East Bay (San Fran Area), the charter school my kids attend gets ~$1300 less per student. So every student that moves from a non-charter to a charter frees up ~$1300 to be used another way by the district (or at least reduces the financial burden of the district if it is already almost destitute). So I wonder... if all those ~1200 charter students were attending the non-charter schools in the district, what happens to that ~$1.5 Million gap? I don't imagine that the school district just has an extra $1.5M sitting around to cover the difference. So does it spread that cut around so now all public schools get less per student? It seems to me that the charter school is saving money not sucking it out. Even if they are only as good as the non-charter schools, they would be doing the same job for less money.