Full Version: Charter Schools
US Charter Schools
Google Search: charter schools
Topics
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
Google Search: charter schools
Topics
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
It looks like these are the US counterparts of foundation schools and hospitals here in the UK.
If I'm right, the idea is that they are funded from taxation, but the schools have almost complete autonomy to spend the money as they see fit. They do have to produce results that meet certain standards, but how they go about doing so is up to them. If they need to raise extra money from parents or financial institutions, they can. Is that a fair stab at it?
Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
There are some advantages to these schools, but some disadvantages as well. Some of these are:
i) There can never be true competition between publicly-funded schools (or hospitals), as they would need to be able to scale capacity up and down at short notice - notoriously to do while maintaining quality, even in private sector businesses.
ii) Say what you like about state or federal funded education and the "bureaucracy" that goes with it, but running several schools from the same organisation requires fewer administrators than running each school as an individual unit would - that's just simple economies of scale. Private organisations, be they charities or companies, would want to run several schools to make such cost savings for themselves. The chances are that some of the bigger concerns will end up having schools all over the USA. How much worse is a centralised bureaucracy when it is in the private sector, and you cannot influence it with your vote?
iii) Private institutions that tender to run public services have the taxpayer over a barrel during their contract. You can't just close a school because of local mismanagement the way a charity can close if it gets no donations, or the way a company folds if it gets no sales. The kids that go there still have to get an education, and there is no immediate way to replace the school at its current location. So the kids have to go to other schools in the area, which, if they are operating efficiently, will not have the spare capacity to take on hundreds of extra pupils at a day's notice.
In other words, the taxpayer will end up having to bail out the situation even in a "charter schools" scenario.
Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
If I were you, I would wait for the experiment to take place fully in the UK before you commit yourselves. If you don't believe me, ask a Californian if they think their state should have copied UK electricity generation and deregulation before they had seen it work, or not, in the UK.
Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
Yes, with one proviso. The religious education should - no, must - be in addition to the secular curriculum defined by government (federal or state), and should take place within special "religion" lessons. i.e. Reading the Bible happens in Religious Education lessons and not in English Literature; learning the story of Creation happens in Religious Education lessons and not in History or Science (not least because it is neither); and so on. Otherwise, you'll end up with a whole denominational rainbow of Pakistani-style [i]madrassas[i], churning out good little Christian/Muslim/<insert religion here> fundamentalists without enough wider education to question anything their religious leaders tell them to do, say, or think.
If you want to put yourself educationally behind India and China within a generation though, just go right ahead and remove all government from education. I'm sure they won't mind you giving up your technically, scientific and artistic superiority straight after you have divested yourselves of most of your heavy industry and unskilled labour force (which by then you probably will have done anyway on current trends). By then, very few young Americans would be educated enough to know what had happened, so they probably wouldn't mind much either.
If I'm right, the idea is that they are funded from taxation, but the schools have almost complete autonomy to spend the money as they see fit. They do have to produce results that meet certain standards, but how they go about doing so is up to them. If they need to raise extra money from parents or financial institutions, they can. Is that a fair stab at it?
Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
There are some advantages to these schools, but some disadvantages as well. Some of these are:
i) There can never be true competition between publicly-funded schools (or hospitals), as they would need to be able to scale capacity up and down at short notice - notoriously to do while maintaining quality, even in private sector businesses.
ii) Say what you like about state or federal funded education and the "bureaucracy" that goes with it, but running several schools from the same organisation requires fewer administrators than running each school as an individual unit would - that's just simple economies of scale. Private organisations, be they charities or companies, would want to run several schools to make such cost savings for themselves. The chances are that some of the bigger concerns will end up having schools all over the USA. How much worse is a centralised bureaucracy when it is in the private sector, and you cannot influence it with your vote?
iii) Private institutions that tender to run public services have the taxpayer over a barrel during their contract. You can't just close a school because of local mismanagement the way a charity can close if it gets no donations, or the way a company folds if it gets no sales. The kids that go there still have to get an education, and there is no immediate way to replace the school at its current location. So the kids have to go to other schools in the area, which, if they are operating efficiently, will not have the spare capacity to take on hundreds of extra pupils at a day's notice.
In other words, the taxpayer will end up having to bail out the situation even in a "charter schools" scenario.
Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
If I were you, I would wait for the experiment to take place fully in the UK before you commit yourselves. If you don't believe me, ask a Californian if they think their state should have copied UK electricity generation and deregulation before they had seen it work, or not, in the UK.
Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
Yes, with one proviso. The religious education should - no, must - be in addition to the secular curriculum defined by government (federal or state), and should take place within special "religion" lessons. i.e. Reading the Bible happens in Religious Education lessons and not in English Literature; learning the story of Creation happens in Religious Education lessons and not in History or Science (not least because it is neither); and so on. Otherwise, you'll end up with a whole denominational rainbow of Pakistani-style [i]madrassas[i], churning out good little Christian/Muslim/<insert religion here> fundamentalists without enough wider education to question anything their religious leaders tell them to do, say, or think.
If you want to put yourself educationally behind India and China within a generation though, just go right ahead and remove all government from education. I'm sure they won't mind you giving up your technically, scientific and artistic superiority straight after you have divested yourselves of most of your heavy industry and unskilled labour force (which by then you probably will have done anyway on current trends). By then, very few young Americans would be educated enough to know what had happened, so they probably wouldn't mind much either.
QUOTE(crashfourit @ Jul 6 2004, 10:05 AM)
QUOTE
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
If you have a school district that is totaly unresponsive, then yes-charter schools provide parents with a good alternative. I would say that parents who are very active in their children's school-members of the PTA, organize fundraisers, attend school board meetings, and show up to school activities are generally happy with the school that their child is in. A school is only as good as the population that surrounds it, and public schools are the same. I know two schools that are fifteen miles apart. One is considered the more "academic" building while the other is one for kids to just pass through and where academic pursuits are considered less important than say, owning one's own paving business. I don't care what title you put above a building-public, private, charter, corporate, it will only function as well as the kids in the building and the staff in the lounge and the attitudes of the community at large.
QUOTE
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
I would say that is a matter that individual states should do. You folks in New York obviously have a need to do that, but for those of us in the midwest, charter schools are not a viable alternative. We have counties that have less than 1400 people. You mean to tell me that a county that barely supports a public school will somehow accrue the funds to start a charter school when the people in the county are having a hard time economically?
QUOTE
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
No public monies should be used for private instruction. Private schools are fine, but "voucher" and charter school systems should not be allowed to cross that line.
Just as an ending note, charter schools are not without their own problems. No matter what system you choose, there are going to be drawbacks of some nature. According to a recent Stanford study of Ohio charter schools:
QUOTE
About 48 percent of charter school teachers nationwide do not have a teaching certificate, compared to 9 percent in the typical public school. In Ohio charter schools, 54 percent of teachers lack credentials.
A key argument for charter schools is that they will provide a level-playing field for poor/low-income students. It appears that the Ohio charter schools are doing an equal to lesser job in this regard when compared to the public schools.
QUOTE
Charter schools, especially those serving children from poor families, fail to acquire the federal money to which they are entitled for low-achieving and disabled students. In predominantly black charter schools, about two-thirds of the students come from poor families, yet only 6 percent of those schools receive the federal aid to which they are entitled.
Cleveland Plains Dealer
Canada has been a pioneer in the charter school business, here is an article on the 10 problems of charter schools in Canada.
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
My children are enrolled in a charter school becasue the advantages of the charter outweighed any advantages of the public school.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
All education should be handled at the county level. Not state.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
It doesn't matter what you "allow" them to teach, most charter schools are home schools and you could never watch "all" the religious practice at homes. Besides the charter schools that are not at home are non relgious.
Charter schools are government funded schools for students in areas that district schools are too bad (overcrowded, lack funds, do not speak english). The government has to fund it. If the government doesn't fund it, and it is funded privately, it is called a PRIVATE SCHOOL.
Joshua
My children are enrolled in a charter school becasue the advantages of the charter outweighed any advantages of the public school.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
All education should be handled at the county level. Not state.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
It doesn't matter what you "allow" them to teach, most charter schools are home schools and you could never watch "all" the religious practice at homes. Besides the charter schools that are not at home are non relgious.
Charter schools are government funded schools for students in areas that district schools are too bad (overcrowded, lack funds, do not speak english). The government has to fund it. If the government doesn't fund it, and it is funded privately, it is called a PRIVATE SCHOOL.
Joshua
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The biggest problem is when one of these 'schools' starts to seriously falter, the very nature of the beast means that it takes a good long while to extricate public money from them-- if there is any left-- and causes students to fall behind.
It's pretty hard to explain to little Johnny that he has to take the 3rd grade over again because the conservative zeal for privatization was entertained before it was thought out. These are political solutions attempting to resolve pedagogical problems.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
Nope.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
The conservative ideal, much invoked in the charter school debate, is that charter schools will have more freedom to innovate and experiment. The upshot is there is little government oversight in what actually goes on inside the walls. Largely unable to divine how an 'opt-out' is being applied, taxpayers must simply trust that everyone is playing by the rules. By the time we find out that the charter school down the road is a madrasas, we've already spent our money on it.
How likely do you suppose it is that we'll get it back?
The disadvantages outweigh the advantages. The biggest problem is when one of these 'schools' starts to seriously falter, the very nature of the beast means that it takes a good long while to extricate public money from them-- if there is any left-- and causes students to fall behind.
It's pretty hard to explain to little Johnny that he has to take the 3rd grade over again because the conservative zeal for privatization was entertained before it was thought out. These are political solutions attempting to resolve pedagogical problems.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
Nope.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
The conservative ideal, much invoked in the charter school debate, is that charter schools will have more freedom to innovate and experiment. The upshot is there is little government oversight in what actually goes on inside the walls. Largely unable to divine how an 'opt-out' is being applied, taxpayers must simply trust that everyone is playing by the rules. By the time we find out that the charter school down the road is a madrasas, we've already spent our money on it.
How likely do you suppose it is that we'll get it back?
QUOTE(KyleCoyote @ Aug 28 2004, 07:20 AM)
The biggest problem is when one of these 'schools' starts to seriously falter, the very nature of the beast means that it takes a good long while to extricate public money from them-- if there is any left-- and causes students to fall behind.
It's pretty hard to explain to little Johnny that he has to take the 3rd grade over again because the conservative zeal for privatization was entertained before it was thought out. These are political solutions attempting to resolve pedagogical problems.
{removed for content by author}. Check out what the U.S. Department of Education says about charter schools.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Aug 28 2004, 12:00 PM)
Yeah right on, you have no clue about what you are talking about.
Please avoid the belittling personal commentary. It is against the Rules.
TOPICS:
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
TOPICS:
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
Charter schools make terrific sense when applied to the issue of rural accesability. They have been phenomonally succesful in Alaska- because the alternative for many far -flung villages is boarding schools a very long plane ride from family!
I think charter schools fulfill a very important niche- and should be used as just that- because public schools TRY to be all things to all poeple- a charter school can fill in the places that public school just can't cover- like there is a charter school here primarily for those that are musically gifted. It is actually cheaper and more efficient than creating a program in every school in a relatively small population we have here anyway!
I think charter schools fulfill a very important niche- and should be used as just that- because public schools TRY to be all things to all poeple- a charter school can fill in the places that public school just can't cover- like there is a charter school here primarily for those that are musically gifted. It is actually cheaper and more efficient than creating a program in every school in a relatively small population we have here anyway!
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
1. depends, results vary with quality of curriculum, teaching staff, admin, and level of parental involvement, just like public schools. They may be able to better deal with problem kids, as they can kick them out easier than at public schools.
2. yes, there MUST be oversight. Already in AZ we have had fraud and corruption and lots of "missing" funds. Most counties are not able to handle that part of oversight, state governments are big enough to already have departments that can oversee the financial dealings of charter schools.
3. Do that the way a lot of Mormon communities do, the kids attend seminary in the morning before school. I don't want my tax money going to amateurs or zealots teaching religion.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
1. depends, results vary with quality of curriculum, teaching staff, admin, and level of parental involvement, just like public schools. They may be able to better deal with problem kids, as they can kick them out easier than at public schools.
2. yes, there MUST be oversight. Already in AZ we have had fraud and corruption and lots of "missing" funds. Most counties are not able to handle that part of oversight, state governments are big enough to already have departments that can oversee the financial dealings of charter schools.
3. Do that the way a lot of Mormon communities do, the kids attend seminary in the morning before school. I don't want my tax money going to amateurs or zealots teaching religion.
It looks as if things in California got a lot more interesting. $100 million of taxpayer money was flushed down the toiled to fund sixty charter schools that are now out of business due to bankruptcy and the owner refuses to take phone calls. Teachers are having trouble finding jobs, student records are lost, investigations are pending regarding the purposeful miscounting of students for more taxpayer money, and parents are trying to find a place for their children with the recent start of the school year.
How bad is it?
Teachers are getting the shaft...
How did this private company treat the private records of students that they were charged with?
(source, Sid Dillon, September 17th,2004 New York Times ) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/educatio...ml?pagewanted=1 ; registration required
How bad is it?
QUOTE
Until the Charter Academy went into its tailspin, few people predicted that these crashes could be so bloody, but this has been a catastrophe for many people," said Bruce Fuller, a professor of education at the University of California, Berkeley. "The critics of market-oriented reforms warned of risks with the philosophy of let-the-buyer-beware, but in this case, buyers were just totally hung out to dry."
Teachers are getting the shaft...
QUOTE
At the interview in Oro Grande, he produced a stack of letters from distraught, jobless teachers. Travis D. Taylor, who taught art and science to students at a Charter Academy school in Gridley, wrote to say that he had not been repaid the hundreds of dollars he spent on books and science equipment for his students.
How did this private company treat the private records of students that they were charged with?
QUOTE
One of Mr. Larson's secretaries interrupted the interview to announce that the landlord of a school forced to close in Los Angeles was threatening to dump desks and student records in the street to make way for a new tenant. Mr. Larson wrestled with the notion of driving a truck to Los Angeles himself to fetch the assets.
(source, Sid Dillon, September 17th,2004 New York Times ) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/educatio...ml?pagewanted=1 ; registration required
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
Pros:
1. Smaller, thus more nimble, in-school bureaucracies (potentially more efficient)
2. Focused education (such as music academies)
Cons:
1. Market economics means failed schools leave children without a school.
2. Oversight costs money (exchange one cost for another).
3. Inter-school efficiency is lost due to lack of "economy of scale"
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
I think states ought to be able to do this, however I would like to see a change in the money distribution/tax system associated with education as well. We can't have more unfunded mandates.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
No...or rather only in the form of comparative religion classes and only if they are elective. If the school gets public funds, then it cannot be allowed to be a religious school even with opt-out clauses.
Pros:
1. Smaller, thus more nimble, in-school bureaucracies (potentially more efficient)
2. Focused education (such as music academies)
Cons:
1. Market economics means failed schools leave children without a school.
2. Oversight costs money (exchange one cost for another).
3. Inter-school efficiency is lost due to lack of "economy of scale"
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
I think states ought to be able to do this, however I would like to see a change in the money distribution/tax system associated with education as well. We can't have more unfunded mandates.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
No...or rather only in the form of comparative religion classes and only if they are elective. If the school gets public funds, then it cannot be allowed to be a religious school even with opt-out clauses.
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Aug 27 2004, 02:12 PM)
All education should be handled at the county level. Not state.
Although it's called FWISD, the district does not cover the entire city. In fact, Fort Worth's largest mall--Hulen Mall--(with a loit of tax dollars) is in the Crowley Independent School District.
In Texas we have 254 counties and 1035 school districts. Consolidating the 1035 districts for into 254 county systems might make sense, but current problems would still exist. First, school districts are funded by a combination of local, state and national tax dollars. While county, or more accurately total local control might be good in theory, the web of entanglement is too great to ever be undone. When money comes from the state or federal government, mandates and accountability go with it. Second, even if school districts were locally controlled there would still be a question of equal funding among districts. Texas is currently under what is called the Robin Hood plan. Robin Hood, which shifts funds from property tax rich to property tax poor districts, came about after the Mexican-American Legal Defense fund filed suit some years ago. As late as this summer, the Governor and state legislature attempted to find a replacement—without success.
Here’s a link to a recent story on Texas financing of public schools:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2799851
Now to answer the specific questions. Texas has had charter schools, so I’ll use it as a model.
Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
Texas first established charter schools in 1995. This was a left-over item from the Bush agenda that was enacted under Governor Rick Perry. The following is a statement from Texas Education Agency (TEA) about the purpose of charter schools:
QUOTE
To further promote local initiative, the 1995 revision of the Texas Education Code established a new type of public school, known as a charter school. Charter schools are subject to fewer state laws than other public schools with the idea of ensuring fiscal and academic accountability without undue regulation of instructional methods or pedagogical innovation. Like school districts, charter schools are monitored and accredited under the statewide testing and accountability system.
According to the Texas Education Code, the purposes of charter schools are to (1) improve student learning; (2) increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school system; (3) create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system; (4) establish a new form of accountability for public schools; and (5) encourage different and innovative learning methods.
According to the Texas Education Code, the purposes of charter schools are to (1) improve student learning; (2) increase the choice of learning opportunities within the public school system; (3) create professional opportunities that will attract new teachers to the public school system; (4) establish a new form of accountability for public schools; and (5) encourage different and innovative learning methods.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/charte
Texas Education Agency figures for 2002 reveal the following about charter vs. public schools. I had to do some number crunching from TEA sites to get this information.
Texas divides its schools into four rating categories:
1. Exemplary
2. Recognized
3. Acceptable
4. Low Performing
The ratings are based on standardized test scores and dropout rates.
See link for more:
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...ual/table1.html
TEA data for 2002 reveal the following about public and charter schools campuses:
PUIBLIC SCHOOLS
1. Exemplary
Number of Campuses=1918
Percentage of Campuses 29.3
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?...=Rating+Summary
Recognized
Number=2391
Percentage=36.6
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?...=Rating+Summary
Acceptable
Number=2063
Percentage=31.6
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?...=Rating+Summary
Low Performing
Number=166
Percentage=2.5
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/cgi/sas/broker?...=Rating+Summary
By contrast, here’s how charter schools stacked up the same year:
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Exemplary
Number=15
Percentage 10.7
Recoginzed
Number=9
Pecentaqge=6.4
Acceptable
Number=79
Percentage=6.4
Low Performing
Number=37
Percentage=26.4
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...2/charters.html
Notes: a. I’m sorry, but there aren’t sub links for charter schools as there are for public. This might be because thee are so few charter schools compared to public schools, b. There were 14 charter schools in the new category that were not rated. There were also 47 charter schools labeled as “needs peer review.” As best I can determine, the process for approving or continuing a plan for a charter school involves review by a peer committee and final approval by TEA.I'm not sure if peer review is necessary to obtain a charter or merely keep one, but I plan to call TEA Monday and find out, c. Because of rounding the total percentage for charter schools comes to 99.9%. This is the best I can do.
Based on nine years of Texas experience and a comparison of TEA released data for both charter and public schools, I would say the disadvantage of charter schools is that much of the time they don’t work too well. Most telling is the fact that more than a quarter of the charter schools rated were low performing vs. 2.5 percent for public schools.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
Based on the information above, definitely not.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
I am familiar wih the position that paents who send children to private schools are taxpayers and should therefore receive tax dollars to offset private or parochial school expenses. Philosophically, I reject this position. I don’t care if private schools exist or teach religion or whatever, but private funds should finance private school operations.
There's a report at www.brookings.com that (I can't find right now) that showed that, yes, charter schools as a group perform worse than public schools. They showed that to be successful, a charter school should have 1) good funding, approaching the average per-pupil expenditures of traditional public schools 2) freedom from regulations, specifically from bargaining unit salaries 3) strict accountability to their charter.
One aspect not mentioned by the above posters, and unknown to me, is the effect of charter schools on the remaining public schools in a district. A chief advantage of the charter school theory is the increase in choice a student('s parents) has in education, and the competition that fosters between schools.
Another aspect, which at least partially explains the relatively low performance of charter schools, is the self-selection of students who are struggling at public schools: many charter school students were struggling in, and unhappy at their previous public school; those that weren't tended to stay in the same school.
A third aspect, is the relative time involved. Charter schools have been shown to perform poorly in their first and second years of operation, and largely catching up to similar traditional public schools during their third year of operation. It is likely that the inclusion of 1st and 2nd year schools skews the performance measure of the charter school population negatively.
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
I believe so: competition improves price performance, so taxpayers get more bang for their buck. Effective strategies employed at individual charter schools can be emulated at other schools. Specialized programs can be implemented in a district at lower cost. The percieved disadvantages such as risk of school failure can be minimized with proper administration of the charter system, and aren't much worse than the risk of public school failure...in terms of overcrowding, lack of resources, and a general inability to teach.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
If we are a voting citizen of that state, we should vote to allow local school districts the option of allowing charters schools, within a loose, state-level framework.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
No. Actually, I don't have a problem with vouchers, or vouchers being used at accredited parochial schools, however I think that a voucher should be less than the per-student funding at charter schools.
One aspect not mentioned by the above posters, and unknown to me, is the effect of charter schools on the remaining public schools in a district. A chief advantage of the charter school theory is the increase in choice a student('s parents) has in education, and the competition that fosters between schools.
Another aspect, which at least partially explains the relatively low performance of charter schools, is the self-selection of students who are struggling at public schools: many charter school students were struggling in, and unhappy at their previous public school; those that weren't tended to stay in the same school.
A third aspect, is the relative time involved. Charter schools have been shown to perform poorly in their first and second years of operation, and largely catching up to similar traditional public schools during their third year of operation. It is likely that the inclusion of 1st and 2nd year schools skews the performance measure of the charter school population negatively.
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
I believe so: competition improves price performance, so taxpayers get more bang for their buck. Effective strategies employed at individual charter schools can be emulated at other schools. Specialized programs can be implemented in a district at lower cost. The percieved disadvantages such as risk of school failure can be minimized with proper administration of the charter system, and aren't much worse than the risk of public school failure...in terms of overcrowding, lack of resources, and a general inability to teach.
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
If we are a voting citizen of that state, we should vote to allow local school districts the option of allowing charters schools, within a loose, state-level framework.
3) Should they be able to teach religious subjects IF there is an opt out option (may be privately funded)?
No. Actually, I don't have a problem with vouchers, or vouchers being used at accredited parochial schools, however I think that a voucher should be less than the per-student funding at charter schools.
QUOTE(BoF @ Sep 18 2004, 08:45 PM)
Texas first established charter schools in 1995. This was a left-over item from the Bush agenda that was enacted under Governor Rick Perry. The following is a statement from Texas Education Agency. (TEA) about the purpose of charter schools:
CORRECTION
George W. Bush became Governor of Texas on January 17, 1995 and quit to run for president on Decembe 21, 2000. Lt. Governor Rick Perry took over and defeated Democrat Tony Sanchez to remain in office in November, 2002.
I know you will understaned that for liberal Texans Bush has been a nine year nightmare rather than one that's lasted only four years. Hence, it's easier just to forget the details of his governorship once in a while, if only temporarily.
UPDATE
I just talked to a representative from Texas Education Agency's accountability division. The "Needs Peer Review" designation was from another division of TEA. Because of reduction in force, the division no longer exists, hence the designation is obsolete.
TEA will release 2004 ratings on September 30, 2004. This year's designations will be:
1. Exemplary
2. Recognized
3. Acceptable
4. Low Performing
5. Not rated: alternative education
(The representative said that these schools would be in the 2005 accountability ratings)
6. Not rated: Other
(This category includes schools were rating data was not available)
I'll update this thread again when the new acountability ratings come out. Don't hold me to the Sept 30 deadline. Hoperfully, TEA will be on time, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Perhaps the new information will provide more information on Texas' nine year experiment with charter schools.
I just talked to a representative from Texas Education Agency's accountability division. The "Needs Peer Review" designation was from another division of TEA. Because of reduction in force, the division no longer exists, hence the designation is obsolete.
TEA will release 2004 ratings on September 30, 2004. This year's designations will be:
1. Exemplary
2. Recognized
3. Acceptable
4. Low Performing
5. Not rated: alternative education
(The representative said that these schools would be in the 2005 accountability ratings)
6. Not rated: Other
(This category includes schools were rating data was not available)
I'll update this thread again when the new acountability ratings come out. Don't hold me to the Sept 30 deadline. Hoperfully, TEA will be on time, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Perhaps the new information will provide more information on Texas' nine year experiment with charter schools.
1) Are there any advantages or disadvantages of charter schools?
From the figures below, I must conclude, again, that the the main disadvantage of charter schools is that they don’t work well when compared with public schools.
Texas Education Agency (TEA) came out with its accountability data for 2004 today. The green tables in the links below list results by campus. Information on charter schools is presented in a stand alone table, but results for all schools mixed charter and public school campus together. To get a better comparison I subtracted the charter school figures out of the total tables to get information for just the public schools. The adjustment changed figures slightly, but didn’t alter the trend.
Here are the results for 2004 in each of the state’s six categories. The figures before the slash in both number and percentage represent public school campuses, while the number after the slash represents charter schools. Because of rounding, I got 100.1% in my adjusted figures.
Exemplary
Number=509/8
Percentage[6.9%/2.9%
Recognized
Number=2510/21
Percentage=33.3%/7.7%
Academically Acceptable
Number=3514/71
Percentage=46.6%/25.9%
Academically Unacceptable
Number=73/29
Percentage=1%/10.6%
*Not Rated: Alternative Education
Number=262/119
Percentage=3.5%/43.4%
*Not Rated: Other
Number=671/26
Percentage=1.9%/9.5%
*According to TEA’s accountability division, this year’s not rated schools will be rated in 2005.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...atesummary.html
(Edited to provide correct link.)
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
Charter schools were part of George W. Bush’s educational reforms. in Texas. Texas has nine years experience with charter schools. As I look at data released above, I don’t think it would be wise for other states to do this. In fact, I think the Texas experiment has been a colossal failure.
From the figures below, I must conclude, again, that the the main disadvantage of charter schools is that they don’t work well when compared with public schools.
Texas Education Agency (TEA) came out with its accountability data for 2004 today. The green tables in the links below list results by campus. Information on charter schools is presented in a stand alone table, but results for all schools mixed charter and public school campus together. To get a better comparison I subtracted the charter school figures out of the total tables to get information for just the public schools. The adjustment changed figures slightly, but didn’t alter the trend.
Here are the results for 2004 in each of the state’s six categories. The figures before the slash in both number and percentage represent public school campuses, while the number after the slash represents charter schools. Because of rounding, I got 100.1% in my adjusted figures.
Exemplary
Number=509/8
Percentage[6.9%/2.9%
Recognized
Number=2510/21
Percentage=33.3%/7.7%
Academically Acceptable
Number=3514/71
Percentage=46.6%/25.9%
Academically Unacceptable
Number=73/29
Percentage=1%/10.6%
*Not Rated: Alternative Education
Number=262/119
Percentage=3.5%/43.4%
*Not Rated: Other
Number=671/26
Percentage=1.9%/9.5%
*According to TEA’s accountability division, this year’s not rated schools will be rated in 2005.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/acco...atesummary.html
(Edited to provide correct link.)
2) Should we pass charter school legislation at the state level?
Charter schools were part of George W. Bush’s educational reforms. in Texas. Texas has nine years experience with charter schools. As I look at data released above, I don’t think it would be wise for other states to do this. In fact, I think the Texas experiment has been a colossal failure.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.