I have no knowledge of them whatsoever BUT I need to discuss them....Give me my talking points!!!!
they are run just as badly as the public schools, I really don't see the point.
Who wants to do the OP's homework for him?
They are failed conservative social engineering. The point was to break unions and make profits, not teach children.
r3 is completely correct, but forgot to add: BULLSHIT!!!
Like vouchers and "school choice," charters are a political "solution" to a socio-economic problem.
So, r4, you agree with r3?
Charter schools are not for-profit, R3.
A few are nfp, but most aren't. Look into them and you will see a very devious charade, set up under the guise of education.
It is odd...the people I'm having dinner with her staunch liberals...yet their kids go to a charter school.
In places where nobody wants to make all the public schools provide good education to all the kids, they provide the illusion that YOUR kid can go to the one good school.
It's a solution to our tax-phobic, fuck-everyone-else-and-their-kid times.
They are vile, representing the worst of NIMBYism.
R8. Provide facts please.
Regardless of their NFP status, the main problem is that their funding comes from the states, usually from funds that would otherwise be going to public schools, meaning that public schools will only get *worse*. In effect, they're basically private schools but the taxpayers get the bill. So yes, as R4 said, they're BULLSHIT. They're a poorly devised Band-Aid on a much larger problem of why so many public schools have gone to hell and a handbasket, the answer in large part being "white flight" to suburbs with their own school districts.
Michelle Rhee the failed former superintendent of Washington DC public schools is now the head of StudentsFirst a "nonprofit" organization that advocates for charter schools and is out to union bust. The organization has been backing all sorts of school board candidate with mixed success.
Get this. She is now married to the mayor of Sacramento, former NBA player Kevin Johnson. He founded St. Hope an organization that runs seven charter schools in the city.
Not saying that this is related, but just three weeks ago the school district close nine elementary schools with adequate enrollment [italic]and[/italic] an $11 million SURPLUS. Open-enrollment afterwards was insane. A lot of kids will not be able to go to school anywhere near their homes and the district doesn't provide any sort of transportation.
But, there's writing on the wall.
A vehicle to privatize a core governmental function to provide a free and public system of K-12 education. Even worse idea than private prisons.
Anyone who advocates for the status quo in public education is the real problem.
How do these owners make money?
That's not true R16. Anyone who advocates for charter schools is the problem.
Chicago never had a problem with teenage violence before charter schools. I'm just sayin'.
Charter schools disrupted longstanding neighborhood school ties and added confusion and multiple loyalties to neighborhoods that were already on the edge.
It was failed social engineering in Texas, where a few "rising test scores" had been made possible by a) cheating; and b) making the tests easier, leaving Texas still at the bottom of all national education standards - and yet it was adopted wholesale.
The result has been violence and confusion and such blatant corruption that the Mayor has more or less advertised he is for sale.
What about charter schools in rich neighborhoods? There is a charter high school in Pacific Palisades CA.
The family I know who go there say the go to public school.
r19, that's not accurate. If you look at the data (under Huberman and, earlier, under Duncan), charter schools actually delivered a better education (as measured by test scores, student promotions - incl. college admissions, etc.). And schools in the roughest neighborhoods (WGP, Englewood) saw a drop in violence. However, once the "corporations" started running schools (early schools were run by teachers who, unfortunately, had no idea how to manage multi-million $ budgets) we started to see the negative effects).
Charters can work -- and have for NYCBOE, CPS, and LAUSD when they're managed by people with strong ties to the community. Anyone who thinks that a district office will ever get the public schools up and running properly has spent no time in a district office.
My big gripe about Charter Schools is that they use public school buildings. No charter school should be allowed to displace a public school. As far as I am concerned it is like placing a Barnes and Nobel in a public library. It only makes the public school more crowed and reduces the available facilities for the public school.
Not all charters use public school buildings. Many use abandoned parochial school buildings. Most CS's want their own buildings but district rules prohibit that choice.
Here's what some of the charter schools (funded by taxpayers) in Louisiana teach: The KKK was not a bad group and actually did positive things for communities, dragons were real, and gay and lesbians "have no more claims to special rights than child molesters or rapists."
You're full of shit R22, and let's face it, Huberman was Daley's paid buttboy, not a professional of any kind. And Arne Duncan is one of those yuppie idiots who think education's problems can all be solved with good old private sector KNOW-HOW. In truth, all the relevant research on education was being conducted at public universities and none of their theories has been tested by any of these private companies. The key to improving education was to strengthen the school and community bond and no violence did not go down when charter schools were created, it went up, as we see it today.
This was bad social engineering, bad politics intended to fill party coffers with donations from for profit education companies, and siphon off megabucks to online tutoring scams - and none of it ever made any sense. I might add that Chicago's test scores are nothing to be proud of and at one time Chicago had the best public school system IN. THE. WORLD. But that was an era where nobody thought about the profits they could make by scamming parents and voters.
Charter Schools were and are a union busting scheme, not about education at all.
I work in education. I evaluate programs in public schools, charters, Catholic and Lutheran parochial, and private schools.
Charters are diverse, but in my experience, for every charter maintaining an informed vision, led by an expert board, managed by exemplary administers, and staffed by expert and committed teachers, there are five or more charters that are incompetent, naive, corrupt, money-focused stink holes with inappropriate or under-developed curricula.
Large corporations running charters like ghetto food stores, religious (hiding it and lying, but distorting science content especially nonetheless) groups sucking from the public teat to spout lunacy, and individuals who line their pockets and resumes - I have been appalled at the poor performance and disservice I see. And of course they largely aim at "historically underserved members of the community" - which means they damage existing challenged public school systems by competing for students and effectively reducing available funding. The most challenged students often are left in the school systems while charters are free to take whomever - by lottery (yeah, right). And if the charters fail or students' parents move - this is a very transient population - the public school system receives students back who are in eighth grade with third-grade reading levels.
The charter system is a very poor idea. It hurts, not helps, the cause, no matter what the Obama administration pretends. I support Obama in most things, but his business-model vision of education and his cadre of "forward-thinking, dynamic" assholes at sub-secretary levels is continuing to do considerable damage to the enormously troubled American public school system.
Just so people know what who Huberman is.
His Wiki bio:
Born in 1971 in Israel, he graduated from Wisconsin and got a job at a Chicago beat cop. He went to school at night (on scholarship) to get MSW and MBA degrees at Chicago. Despite having no IT experience or training, he was said to have created a new better criminal database for Chicago police, which was used to promote him to Asst. Deputy Superintendent. In 2004, when Huberman was 32 or 33, Daley picked him to be in charge of the city's terrorist response center and 9-1-1 system for which feds provided the money. In 2005 he was made Daley's chief of staff and was that during the first ill-fated and dimwitted privatization of the parking garages, when daily parking charges of $25 elminated the suburban shopping on Michigan Ave. He was made president of the CTA (transit system) in 2007. They put him in charge of the schools for one year in 2009, where he put 76 schools on a year-round plan.
In short, he had no expertise in education. His "expertise" was in "management," which is to say, doing whatever Daley wanted done.
Needless to say, he was very handsome. EXTREMELY handsome. And openly gay.
His parents were educators and he went to Harvard and had a thesis on education...but then he spent four years playing pro basketball in Australia, came home for four years as a for-profit educational consultant paid for by a right-wing investment banking buddy of his from Harvard, then opened a Charter School, was put in charge of Chicago Public Schools, and then Secretary of Education. A meteoric rise, but let's face it, his perspective on Charter Schools is not independently derived.
He never had to become teacher certified.
He has no education in education.
He's a basketball player.
In other words, my view of Arne Duncan was that he considered himself too smart and high level to have to get a teaching certificate, being a Harvard grad, man of the world, and buddy of rich investment bankers; and so his faith that smart people like himself could save education if they could dispense with all that silly training stuff and union rules is probably based on that little snobbery, that unwillingness to buckle down and achieve something the right way, the hard way, or the way without shortcuts.
And why is it okay to experiment on children in the USA with one's grandiose schemes, but not okay to experiment on adults or elderly or even touch the military? What it really demonstrates is how cynical and uncaring all these people really are, that instead of making education a sacred cow, they make it into a scheme for scammers.
I don't know Arne Duncan or if he's as bad as I painted him. I'm just trying to explain why someone would be so dedicated to a bad idea like charter schools. Yes it is possible for a smart person, any smart person, to create a great school. That's not the same as creating a system of smart schools.
CPS were certainly better in the past (since that's a relative measure, almost anything would be better, unfortunately) but they were never the best in the world. I've worked with both Huberman and Duncan so I don't have to "consult" wikipedia.
Charters are a way to break the union (although that was less of a concern for Duncan than for Huberman). But, that's not the entire reason for charters nor would roping in the union be a bad thing for the kids. You just have to look at the number of teachers fired for cause over the last decade (it's minuscule relative to the negative things teachers did during that period).
Having visited over 300 (about half) of the CPS between 2007 and 2010, it was clear that most (not all) of the non-charters were a mess. Some charters were a mess, too. The best model seems to be the community school model. It's a public school managed by the district but with significant community input and w/ wiggle room with regard to "rules" (e.g. the weighting of standardized tests, hiring policies).
Charter schools are EVERYWHERE in DC. Some are good, but many suck ass.
r3 nailed it
KIPP and YES are the only functional ones here in Houston. They treat their teachers horribly, though... Stories of teacher abuse that could never happen at a public school.
Obama took away school vouchers in DC. Why doesn't he want poor parents to get a better education for their kids?
Using test scores isn't really the best way to evaluate charters vs. public schools since many charter schools can get rid of low-performing students or not accept them in the first place. A public school has to take everyone.