Charter school students more likely to graduate, attend college

[noamnety]

Source: Michigan State University

Ron Zimmer, MSU associate professor of education, and colleagues are the first to conduct a long-term investigation of graduation and college-attendance rates at charter high schools. They found that charter students are 7 percent to 15 percent more likely to graduate from high school and attend college than students at traditional public schools.

...

Other findings from the study, which looked at eight U.S. locations:

* There is little evidence that charter schools are producing, on average, test score gains that differ substantially from those of traditional public schools. Zimmer said much of the previous research has shown similar results.
* Charter schools do not generally draw the top students away from traditional public schools. In fact, Zimmer said students transferring to charter schools generally have below-average test scores.
* Charter schools do not appear to substantially help or harm student achievement in nearby traditional public schools.

"This study provides evidence that charter schools might be moving in the right direction in terms of high school graduation and college attendance, but test scores and other outcomes might not be as promising," Zimmer said. "So policymakers need to think more broadly about outcomes when evaluating how to proceed with charter schools."

Read more: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/msu-css031809.php

[WCGreen]

1. I am really not comfortable with education for profit...

And this is obviously the goal of the Charter School Industry.

[pattmarty]

2. I'll second that. My belief is that the education system has.............

..........gotten so fucked up over many years, that ANY thing will be an improvement. My fear with Charter schools is that once fully established the "for profit" will really kick in and the schools will be overall worse off AND more costly.

[noamnety]

5. What do you think they are doing differently

that traditional schools might learn from?

[spotbird]

46. They draw students who are motivated

or whose parents are motivated to improve education. Not every student, but a sufficient number to make them look superior.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. They also draw kids who have been kicked out of public schools

[City of Mills]

53. For example

Lowell Middlesex Academy Charter School (LMACS) - Massachusetts

http://www.lmacs.org/ (Check out this website!!!)

Lowell Middlesex Academy Charter School serves 100 students each year, and is considered one of the
most successful schools in the State at reintroducing students to school and helping them earn a high school diploma. The school was originally a drop-out prevention program that became a public charter school to meet the increasing need of youth who have not been successful in the local district schools.

Students between the ages of 15 and 21 are served in a supportive, skills-based program with very high standards for both attendance and behavior. All students must pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), which is an important measure of the school’s success.

[spotbird]

57. We are talking about the whole group

Not any individual student. They may also enroll heroin addicts, but the students cannot fairly be compared to the students in traditional schools, because they are different.

This is what's wrong in the world, people can't comprehend that one example does not represent the whole.

[wickerwoman]

60. They kick out kids who aren't achieving.

They then go back into the public school system or drop out completely.

Even when the charter school kids were thrown out of the public school system, the fact that they're in a charter school shows that they have at least one adult who gives a shit about their eduction. That is not something you can guarantee in a public school student so it's meaningless to compare achievement statistics when one group is guaranteed a critical aspect of academic success and the other group isn't.

[pattmarty]

69. Well, in a word, cherry picking. AND, I don't think traditional...........

...........schools will learn much of anything different. My opinion of charter schools is first and foremost they are "privately" funded. From what I have read so far they get the "better" teachers, better textbooks and materials, and smaller class sizes. SO, if we did the same for "public" schools they would be better too.

[October]

103. Our charter school doesn't cherry pick. Quite the opposite.

They are meeting the needs of the kids who don't fit into public school.

My principal told me "...this may not be the best place for your son..." I was stunned...but he was right. We are a small, affluent district -- and we only have ONE school. I had no choices and was not interested in nearby private schools. The virtual charter school has been amazing for us.

I'm glad to see a report that shows they don't have negative effects on public schools.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. Many charter schools are non-profit

[WCGreen]

4. But many are not...

Here is Cleveland where Public Education is teetering on ruin, Charter Schools have come and gone like SitComs on Fox...

[noamnety]

9. In general

charters tend to arise in areas where the traditional schools are teetering on ruin. If the traditional schools in an area were meeting the needs of the whole population, after all, the charters would have no enrollment.

They act in some ways like Direct Action - same as feeding the homeless. We shouldn't have to do it, existing government programs should take care of those kinds of needs, but the on-the-street reality is often that it's not working. I'm in favor of combining Direct Action with pressure on elected officials. People can't afford to wait years for the possibility that food stamp programs will improve, or neighborhood schools will improve.

[WCGreen]

12. Here in Cleveland, neither the Carters or the Public Schools seem

to have any grasp about how to change the marginalization of thousands of citizens...

It's very bleak here now and "answers" to the problem have come from everywhere and taken the children no where.

[CaptJasHook]

29. It doesn't matter how good the education is

If the community cannot find an adequate way of employing its people. What is the use of preparing kids for a job or life that they will never have? I would think that in that situation, the best education can do is more akin to social work.

[seabeyond]

40. or thru education, and the kids growing up with the problem, maybe some of them

can come up with some of the solutions

[Kolesar]

21. Charter schools arise in areas where the Bradley Foundation lobbies to create them

...like Ohio and Wisconsin. And in Ohio, privatized schools are a pet project of the right wing Buckeye Institute--the institute that hired disgraced Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell.

[Freddie Stubbs]

42. So, if the Charter Schools are gone, what is to blame for the public school's crisis?

:shrug:

[pattmarty]

73. JesusfuckingChrist, when did you go to school? Did you go to..........

....school? I went to grade/high school from 1952-65 and the schools were better than when my kids went to school in the 80's. AND, now the schools are even worse. JUST A SIMPLE FUCKING OBSERVATION: Look at ALL the schools in the rest of the industrialized world and you will find the "magical" answer. What in the fuck are THEY doing that we are not? This ain't brain surgery, it ain't hard. It takes a "plan" and the money to carry it out. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION, except the conservatives that WANT to destroy it.

[zazen]

6. my daughter's charter high school is super progressive and ranked 20th in US among ALL schools

and is most certainly non-profit. Maybe other states allow for-profit schools to get charter money, but her school (and her middle grades charter school) are begging for money all the time.

The "privilege" of charter schools is that parents must provide their child's transportation, which disadvantages families that live too far away (though this is in downtown Raleigh) and are two-income earners without any flexibility (and money to share with other parents' for gas costs.) The school gets a lot done through the volunteer work of parents, which means that not all parents have to volunteer, but it does benefit from several stay at home parents who can help. But I found this in public regular schools in various neighborhoods in Cary/Morrisville. . . richer neighborhoods had so much more because parents donated and volunteered.

Thank you Freddie for pointing this out. I don't get the demonization of charter schools around here, but I guess I'm getting all the benefits (being unemployed and looking into food stamps at this point, we can use all the help we can get for her to snag a major scholarship).

[WCGreen]

17. My hesitation with Charter Schools is tempered by results here in Cleveland

and other school districts across the state of Ohio.

It has been used to siphon money away from public schools and into religious oriented schooling as well as a whole mess of get rich schemes. The main proponents of Charter Schools in Ohio has come from the far right who don't believe the government can do anything right.

The implementation of Charter Schools in Ohio have been, and I am being generous here, shaky at best.

Several schools have just closed without any warning leaving parents and students high and dry.

The real problem in Cleveland and other blighted areas around Ohio is the way they gather funding for the public schools. It is almost entirely built on property tax. The problem here is that the portion that is designated for Schools was decoupled from the rest of the process so that schools are now forced to go to the voters almost every year in order to keep pace with inflation.

And of course these areas are heavy on the minority make up so Republican bile spewers can point to failing schools and say "see, they can't (fill in the blank).

So yes, I guess I am as familiar with what goes on in Raleigh as you with how things are going here in Cleveland.

If they can work, good. If not, then they should be de-chartered.

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Teachers' unions see charter schools as a threat and have worked hard to demonize them

[spotbird]

48. That would be because they will undermine

public education. Good for the teachers' unions, someone should help the kids.

[endersdragon34]

111. Isn't that the parents job?

If parents choose to go to a charter school and not a public school aren't they looking out for their child.

[lutefisk]

56. I think the NEA has a reasoned, thoughtful position:

From the NEA web site:

NEA believes that charter schools and other nontraditional public school options have the potential to facilitate education reforms and develop new and creative teaching methods that can be replicated in traditional public schools for the benefit of all children. Whether charter schools will fulfill this potential depends on how charter schools are designed and implemented, including the oversight and assistance provided by charter authorizers.

NEA's Policy on Charter Schools

State laws and regulations governing charter schools vary widely. NEA's state affiliates have positions on charter schools that are appropriate to the situation in their states. NEA's policy statement sets forth broad parameters, and minimum criteria by which to evaluate state charter laws. For example:

* A charter should be granted only if the proposed school intends to offer an educational experience that is qualitatively different from what is available in traditional public schools.
* Local school boards should have the authority to grant or deny charter applications; the process should be open to the public, and applicants should have the right to appeal to a state agency decisions to deny or revoke a charter.
* Charter school funding should not disproportionately divert resources from traditional public schools.
* Charter schools should be monitored on a continuing basis and should be subject to modification or closure if children or the public interest is at risk.
* Private schools should not be allowed to convert to public charter schools, and private for-profit entities should not be eligible to receive a charter.
* Charter schools should be subject to the same public sector labor relations statutes as traditional public schools, and charter school employees should have the same collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in traditional public schools.

http://www.nea.org/home/16332.htm

I think the NEA position on opposing private schools converting to public charter schools and not allowing private entities to receive a charter are very important. Public charter schools should be PUBLIC and serve the needs of the community.

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Because they are a threat

The charters in my district have cost us millions of dollars in lost state aid every year.

[trudyco]

78. Who's "us"? Traditional public schools. Well, the tent is getting bigger

alternative schools have a place at the table, too. Alternative PUBLIC schools that have shown (in this research) a definate benefit to kids. A significant number not dropping out is a good thing.

So who is the "us" who is losing?

[proud2BlibKansan]

87. A different exclusive tent has been created

Charters in my state don't accept all kids as public schools do. The "us" are the kids who remain in public schools, especially the ones rejected by the charters.

If our legislators wanted to do something about the dropout rate they would change the law that allows them to drop out. Easy solution.

[noamnety]

105. Can you use more precise language there? (nt)

[endersdragon34]

108. How is that?

Don't they just take the exact same amount of money that would be given to the student that your losing...

[proud2BlibKansan]

109. No

[endersdragon34]

110. LOL then how are they stealing money from you

Isn't that sortof like saying nationalized healthcare is taking money from you. I don't think per pupil expenditures are going down for you (tell me if I am wrong), so how does how much money they are making effect you.

[MattBaggins]

116. Exactly

Public School teachers are not good decent people who love to work with kids. They are evil venom spewing monsters who just want to destroy our kids.

[pattmarty]

70. OH??? Explain.

[noamnety]

106. I'm not sure what's to explain.

Many charters are nonprofit.

Many have no corporate entity involved, like mine - they are chartered by the existing local public school system or a public university, all the funds come from public dollars, all the assets are public assets, and the employees are state employees the same as any other public school.

Any excess funds not spent in a year go into a fund controlled by the public school system, same as all other public schools. Any excess funds don't go to share holders or a private contractor or private company - they are the property of the public school system and get reinvested into it.

The equipment and facility belong to the public school system, not a private entity.

[CaptJasHook]

26. You should be concerned about education for profit but....

The two, Charter Schools and Profit, are not necessarily connected.

[wickerwoman]

66. Wherever you have deregulation and lack of oversight, you will have abuse.

Charter schools are the educational equivalent of deregulating the banking system and will have similar dire consequences down the road. Bailing out the public schools in twenty years when they collapse completely will be a hell of a lot more expensive than dealing with the problems we have now head on.

"Operating with minimal regulation, charter schools promise innovation and the hope that they can do for many students what failing public schools cannot. Charters sign contracts for 5, 10 or 15 years with states or local school districts, get about $5,000 a student and then are usually left alone, free to educate with little oversight."

"After investigators for this fast-growing school district went in search of the 67 students who were, on paper, being educated at one of the experimental public schools known as charters, they found only 23 desks in the building. In Texas, an investigation turned up similar discrepancies and also found that tax money intended for charters was being used to buy Victoria's Secret lingerie. In Arizona, a charter opened its doors to students but did not have a sewer line for its restroom."

"Officials say GateWay Academy, which ran schools at Baladullah and in 13 other California sites, was reimbursed by the state for students it could not document; hired felons; taught Islam, in violation of proscriptions against teaching any form of religion; and even charged tuition -- all while receiving more than $2 million in state money over the last two years."

"Even more troubling to educators and politicians are the test scores. Barely half of charter students pass basic Texas performance tests, compared with an 82 percent pass rate for the rest of the state's public school students. The number of low-performing charter schools -- where fewer than 50 percent of the students pass basic achievement tests -- has tripled in three years, a state survey shows. At the same time, the dropout rate among students at Texas charters is more than three times the rate for other public school children."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E3D61F3AF936A35757C0A9649C8B63&pagewanted=1

But it's this quote that's the most telling to me: "''Look how many small businesses start up and don't succeed,'' said Susan Hollins, director of the Charter School Resource Center in Concord, N.H."

Yes, but when a restaurant fails, it doesn't destroy the hopes and potential of hundreds of children. Education is not a business and should never, ever be run for profit. If you think there are self-interested, lazy and or incompetent people in public education now, just wait until the deregulators get their hands on it.

[lutefisk]

77. There needs to be strict regulation and oversight. It's a mess in some states.

Public charter schools aren't businesses, but in some states the people in charge of regulating are caught up in the whole "free market" scam and made a mess of things. That's appalling.

If public charter schools are strictly regulated to operate within the local school districts- teachers, administrators, and facilities - these schools can serve the needs of our diverse communities. No business/for-profit/non-profit involvement at all!

[fasttense]

7. Charter schools are the gate way to privatization of our public educational system.

Charter schools are lavish and carefully monitored - for now. Later, after Wal-Mart and Halliburton have gotten the government contracts to run our educational system, things will vastly deteriorate. It's just like when they privatized the military and now offer expired food and an electrocution with a shower to our military. It's just like when they privatized health-care and now only the uber wealthy can afford good medical care.

Don't let the greedy bastards who destroyed the economy into our public education system. They will destroy that too.

Charter Schools are nothing more than a front.

[CaptJasHook]

30. You are being conflating the definition of Charter schools

into Corporate charter schools. They are not the same. I will never defend corporate, for profit education, but I will heartily defend communities that wish to propose and implement alternative methods of education in the face of failing school districts. Those alternative schools offer passion and innovation.

[SoCalDem]

75. "Charter schools", within the "public system" ..the nose under the tent

By singling themselves out..as "better than", they are setting in place a division..a separateness.

The aim of PUBLIC education, is that (at least it used to be) ALL kids of an age & grade, would be getting the SAME information, the same curriculum, so that any child who moved anywhere, could seamlessly "fit in" at grade level....so that when graduated from high school, any college freshman anywhere, would have the same core skills & education , mastered.

Is the idea robotic/regimented? maybe, but the idea is for ALL kids to at least start out with an equal chance..

Kids who have parents who will stand in long lines, wait overnight, write letters make phone calls etc, to get them INTO a special charter school, would probably do well in ANY school...just as kids whose parents work 3 jobs and have NO time, may suffer at any school..

Around here, one of the elementary magnet schools offers a "performance" based curriculum.. as in music, art, theater etc.. this is for ELEMENTARY kids..another is listed as "for science & math".. These are public elementary schools.. I guess they are designed to give a boost to "certain" kids, but they also EXCLUDE kids who might happen to live across the street from the school. but do not "meet" their criteria..

Sometimes, too many choices may not be in the best interest of the kids.. Until High school, kids should get the basics..in all subjects..to see what really piques their interest.. How does a kid know, at 8 or 9 , what they want to learn?

[noamnety]

81. That's the difference between "equal" and "equitable"

"ALL kids of an age & grade, would be getting the SAME information, the same curriculum"

whether or not they already know the information, whether or not they all come to the class with the same background information, we teach the same information to them. This guarantees that the students who can already read at the 3rd grade level when they enter kindgarden will get no meaningful reading instruction for years. And it guarantees that those who are still struggling with a concept taught the previous year will be left behind if the new information depends on mastery of the previous information.

Attitudes like that are EXACTLY the reason (one of them at least) that some traditional public schools can't or won't serve the needs of their students.

EQUAL is not a synonym for EQUITABLE.

[SoCalDem]

89. It's just too bad, that what used to work, in educating kids, seems to be not working anymore

Perhaps "kids" are evolving differently since 1970:)

The "kids" who grew up to form NASA, managed to send men to the moon with slide-rules, pencils & computers with less power than your laptop.. they were "kids" in an era that managed to produce a whole lot of smart people, with little more than a teacher, a chalkboard, and pencils & paper:)

I'm just quite glad that MY "kids" are now adults..

[noamnety]

91. The 70's were not glory years for all students. (nt)

[SoCalDem]

92. never said they were..

but as an aggregate, the SYSTEM seemed to have produced a more educated batch of kids..

the decline seems to be pretty steady after that period, with more money in the pipeline, and yet the schools don't seem to be benefitting.

Maybe people who might have gone into teaching in times past, decided to go for the big-bucks jobs, instead..:shrug:

[noamnety]

93. I don't know.

The SYSTEM left my sister alone in a classroom one hour a day with no instructor or other students: "You're so damn smart, you figure it out - here's your textbook" in response to her being ready for algebra ahead of schedule.

The SYSTEM left my husband in remedial classes doing no learning at all because he's dyslexic, and flunked him one year. He's an electrical engineer with a master's in optics; he's not slow.

The SYSTEM led to me dropping out after tenth grade because in my rural area, we had mandatory vocational agriculture classes instead of rigorous academics. We trained our local population to be dairy farmers, because that was the primary industry in our area. I would have LOVED an alternative to the local public school.

Even the teachers who oppose charters recognize that teaching one level to all students even if they already know all the material is not equitable at all.

You can point to individual successes and any system will produce SOME of those, but the issue is that ALL the kids deserve a decent education. And spending years sitting in a room sounding out letters when you can already read is not a decent education.

[SoCalDem]

95. When I was in 3rd grade, I read with the 6th grade class.. went there every day

your school must not have been very enlightened.. Every school I went to had groups within the class that concentrated help where needed, and offered advancement for the rest of us..

each person's adventure in learning is individualized, it cannot be anything BUT.. we all do "school" just one time, and designing a curriculum must be pure hell, because every faction has their own ax to grind, and insists that their area must rise to the top.. but there's not a lot of room at the top..

people in the education field must be keeping the antacid industry in business..

[noamnety]

97. I'm officially confused.

You were just advocating the same curriculum for every kid regardless of age or ability, weren't you?

And now you are saying 3rd graders should be allowed to do the 6th grade curriculum for part of the day if it's a better fit for them - anything else is unenlightened.

I'm not really sure what you are advocating now. :)

[SoCalDem]

99. What I meant is that it does not take "special" schools

just teachers that recognize that, within their own classes, there are kids of differing abilities (teachers used to do this all the time), and make accommodations within their own individual school, to tend to the kids, BUT the overall curriculum should still be the same throughout the whole system.

4th graders in poor areas should be getting opportunities and be learning the same things that the ones in the richer areas are.. I had a GATE kid, but he still went to the same school as his brothers, and was not singled out as the "egghead" kid..

I think the main thing that's not being addressed (maybe it's not PC) is that kids with "discipline-deficits", end up wasting a whole lot of teachers' time, and that certainly detracts from the education of the rest of the kids.... and many teachers may be reluctant to deal with it , for fear of being sued by a parent with "not-my-baby" syndrome:)

[noamnety]

104. Perhaps a standard environment is not best for all students, though.

Different schools have different cultures. Some schools have a culture of school rivalry, sports dominates the social life, and the values are completely different.

In our school, it's VERY common to see boys in tights and ballet shoes leaping through the halls. Can you understand why a traditional jock school might not be a good fit for those kids?

[October]

107. Plenty of smart kids since the 70's

I'm actually laughing because I went to school in the 70's and we were always treated as dumb by local parochial school kids, and dumb by teachers, and our parents were always saying how much more they learned when THEY were in school...

The kids are doing fine today -- there is just resistance to any kind of change. People take it personally.

One local kid here was able to produce beautiful documentaries and won top prize at a local film fest at the age of 16!!! He was accepted into two prestigious "film school" colleges. He didn't do it with a slide rule, but with a MAC. I mean, it's just different, not worse.

IMHO, of course.

[noamnety]

120. The privileged kids are doing fine.

Some of the less privileged kids are doing fine. But a lot of kids are NOT doing fine.

That's why we have stories like this:

"Southfield (School District in Michigan), which has two staffers handling residency investigations, removes up to 200 students every year after checking the status of the 3,000-some students living in apartments and any others suspected of attending school fraudulently, officials said.

...

Districts like Southfield, Birmingham, Grosse Pointe and Dearborn investigate hundreds of students attending schools illegally every year, sent by parents who lied about living within a district's borders in an effort to give their children what they believe to be better educational opportunities and safer learning environments." http://webworks.typepad.com/lakecountyfiscalrangers/2008/12/school-district-residency-fraud-can-soak-up-local-tax-dollars.html

Why do we need full-time enforcers to ensure the inner city kids aren't illegally partaking in the public education that's reserved for the kids in suburbia?

[October]

130. Very sad indeed

I didn't mean to be glib.

I was just stating that my whole life we were told we weren't as smart as this country or another. It was so demoralizing and it came from seemingly everyone: politicians, parents, and teachers.

Even "privileged" kids fall through the cracks.

[trudyco]

131. Beautifully said. nt

[MadHound]

8. Well d'uh

Of course more students from charters go to college because charter schools are allowed to hand pick their students. No learning disabled, no students with bad parents, limit the number of poor students to the bare CYA minimum(and make sure that those that you do take are exceptionally driven), no students with poor study skills, etc. etc. And this little gem

Hell, if I could make choices like that "Charter schools do not generally draw the top students away from traditional public schools. In fact, Zimmer said students transferring to charter schools generally have below-average test scores." is a flat out lie, at least where I live. The charters around here actively recruit for the best students that they can find.

Combine that with the fact that charters have more up to date facilities, better per pupil funding, smaller classrooms, all the things that public schools are screaming for, it's no wonder that they have a higher percentage of college grads.

[noamnety]

13. I wish you could make your points with more honesty

instead of misrepresenting things - like charter schools being allowed to hand pick their students (untrue - generally they accept everyone until they hit capacity, and then switch to a lottery system), or having no learning disabled kids (somewhere between 10-20% of my students have IEPs), or not having bad parents (really????), or limiting the number of poor kids (I'm at a Title One school).

If you have points to add to the debate, please, do so - we all welcome that. But if you have to rely on continually repeating things that have been debunked in multiple other threads, it's time to assess the merits of your arguments.

[spotbird]

43. It is disingenuous to claim the

students in each type of school are the same. Perhaps you should reflect on the meaning of intellectual honesty.

[proud2BlibKansan]

55. Madhound and I are from the same state and they do indeed hand pick kids here

I teach special ed and most of my kids who have applied for a charter have been turned down. But our charters also take kids our district has kicked out for disciplinary reasons. So yes their admissions process is messed up.

[noamnety]

63. It doesn't surprise me

that they are taking some students the traditional public schools are unwilling to deal with. That's our experience as well - some of our kids are the ones told by their public schools that they weren't wanted there. (And then folks get huffy that we are willing to educate them - and refer to them as "the students who are extra motivated", urgh)

I am surprised you are having students rejected though. What grounds were given for not allowing your students to enroll? What is a lottery thing, or they actually had space and just said "no we're unwilling to take them"? Around here, that wouldn't be legal, so I am wondering if it's legal in Kansas, or if they are breaking the law and counting on people not having the resources to take them to court.

I found this online in a quick search - maybe it's the source of the difference in policy between your area and mine:


***
"In most states, charter schools are independent public schools that have been authorized by the state board of education, a four-year college or a state board of education for charter schools. In other words, they stand as separate organizations, serving students with the same legal independence that traditional school districts have.

But in Kansas, charter schools aren’t independent. They’re legal and financial creatures of the school district that agrees to permit them to exist. In other words, they’re a gussied-up version of an alternative school.

Not exactly the model of what makes some charter schools work so well elsewhere."
***

http://kansaseducation.wordpress.com/category/kck/

That sounds more like what we call a magnet school here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. I teach in MO

Our charters are taking kids who have been expelled from public schools. It is supposedly against the law for them to enroll in another public school in the state but the charters take them. These are kids who have committed crimes like assaults and drug offenses. They need to be enrolled in alternative programs not charter schools.

[Zhade]

94. So how about an apology to MadHound for calling him a liar?

NT!

[noamnety]

118. The laws in Missouri also contradict his statements. (nt)

[MadHound]

126. So in other words you're calling two people here out as liars

Even though you don't live in the state, even though you aren't linking to shit that backs your happy ass up.

It seems as though your strategy for debating is to call anybody who dares to disagree with you a liar with no supporting evidence. Class act you are, NOT.

[MadHound]

68. Thanks for the back-up

It surprises me how many people think that state rules and regulations are the same from state to state. In some ways that would be beneficial, in other ways not so much.

Totally different topic, congrats on KS getting to the Big Dance. I'll be rooting for you, at least up until you run into Missouri again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

83. That's one of the problems; people think these charters are all the same

and have the same regulations. The lack of knowledge is scary.

And hey see you in the Elite Eight:hi:

[MadHound]

67. I wish you would stop claiming that I'm lying

When the fact of the matter is that I'm not. Every school district, every state have different requirements, allowances, rules and regulations. I'm speaking from the perspective of those that are applicable in my state and my region. Just because they aren't the same in your state or region doesn't mean that I'm lying.

[noamnety]

79. And I wish you'd not make untrue claims

"No learning disabled, no students with bad parents, limit the number of poor students to the bare CYA minimum(and make sure that those that you do take are exceptionally driven), no students with poor study skills, etc. etc. "

From reading that, people would deduce that charters (broadbrush):

- don't accept any learning disabled students (completely untrue as a broadbrush statement, and in Kansas, if they are a separate entity, the federal IDEA would prohibit this, but possibly true if they are part of the local school district - and the district itself is making these decisions)

- limit the number of poor kids, using a bare minimum CYA (Broadbrush is blatantly untrue, and I assume that's not true even in your area since Kansas state law requires that the "socio-economic balance of charter school must approximate district.")

- only accept kids with great study skills (even though your state law requires "Lottery/random process" in the case of over-enrollment - and even though another person in your area says problem kids are diverted to charters!)

All of your charters - looking at state law - appear to be chartered through local public school districts and local public school boards - and seem to be PART of the public school system. This means that any enrollment preferences - which by law have to be in the charter - were written and/or approved by the local traditional public school boards. You seriously want to convince us they would write those in a way that skims their best students to their own detriment? If in fact the schools are what in michigan would be considered magnet schools - formally part of the existing local school district, then it's the school district itself, not a private, entity deciding where each student would best be served.

Incidentally, I also see that your charter teachers by law are covered by the district bargaining agreement - so again I am thinking they are a regular part of your existing school districts.

[MadHound]

112. Umm, I'm not in Kansas,

I'm in Missouri, please get your shit straight and again, stop calling me a liar. You've already had another person who teaches in my state confirm the truth of what I'm saying, why can't you accept it and move on?

[noamnety]

117. Sorry, proud2BlibKansan's profile lists KS as her state

and she said she teaches in the same state as you, so it was hopefully an understandable mistake.

Here's what I found about charter laws in Missouri. In Missouri, it looks like the charter schools are limited to two major cities, and they are separate from other districts (more like in Michigan).

In your state: "Charter schools are required by law to accept and to meet the needs of special needs children and may not have admission requirements. Enrollment is limited only by capacity (Missouri Revised Statutes, 160.410)."

This contradicts some of your earlier statements, I think.

[MadHound]

119. Well, here on the ground that certainly isn't the case

There's are charter schools scattered throughout the state, and having experienced at least a few near where I live, I certainly can say that they aren't required to accept special needs students. Feel free to call me a liar again if you wish, I really don't give a rat's ass at this point, I know what the truth of the matter is, and have been backed up by others who work in the same state I do.

Any other shit you want to fling my way?

[noamnety]

122. Can you name a few that don't accept special ed kids? (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

123. But they do indeed refuse to admit sped kids

Some don't even have sped teachers.

Oops better turn them in for breaking the law. LOL

[noamnety]

125. I was going to ask why nobody does that.

If we don't have full documentation of accommodations made for students, we get their parents threatening to sue us. I had that issue my first year with a student - I didn't document my accommodations. He was entitled to extra time to finish his work - but I accept late work for ALL my students, so I wasn't considering it a special accommodation.

I have no problem with parents or districts holding charters - or any other schools - accountable for following the law - and as someone working in a charter, I'd rather see them held accountable so they aren't damaging our reputation by association.

Are you comfortable listing a few that don't accept special ed kids? (If not, that's fine.)

[proud2BlibKansan]

127. One was an Edison school but they left town and the school came back into the public school district

I'm not sure who manages the others. They change pretty often. The one I heard about refusing sped kids most recently is now under different management.

[trudyco]

80. We have a mix where I live, but the parents with LD kids have tried to

open more schools with those lower scores and the stupid district has stymied them.

What I like about this research is that it is looking at the whole picture. You are only looking at your small piece of it and then condemning Charter Schools as a whole. In that case, I could state that all public schools should be banned from getting federal aid and teaching kids with learning differences. They do such a piss-poor job of it in our district. So it must be so everywhere.

Look at the website actg dot org. Now there is a terrible, evil, rich kid, high performing charter school for you! They DO discriminate against kids - you have to be in the bottom 50% on state tests to get in.

Yep, Charter schools are all evil and should all be shut down. People should just put up with traditional schools that don't work for their kids.

C'mon. I know you're better than that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[woodsprite]

10. Our charter school freed up enough room at our local elem. school

so that our son doesn't need to be bussed 20+ miles away to go to school. Our district is f'd up - half is in Newark DE and the other half is on the north side of Wilmington DE, with a whole expanse of I-95 in between.

Charter school was intense, especially for 5th grade, when they were trying to get all students on an even keel. Our daughter, and many of her friends at Charter went into the honors or AP programs at our local high school. The bussing issue is why parents in our district created a charter school. We're supposed to be doing neighborhood schools, except with the district split, they can bus them whereever they want within the district. That makes it hard for extra curricular activities (sports, music, even filling required volunteer hours with school groups).

[spotbird]

11. Also Breaking: Valedictorians More Likely to Attend College

When they come up with a solution for the kids left behind, I'll be impressed.

[noamnety]

14. Not sure if you missed this:

"students transferring to charter schools generally have below-average test scores. "

In other threads, we've discussed that charters enroll a higher percentage of minority students, traditional schools enroll a higher percentage of white students.

[spotbird]

23. Enrollment in charter schools

shows a level of motivation and interest in education, there is no control set of students to compare.

This is a back door method to dismantle public education, not improve it.

[PVnRT]

36. That's kind of the key point here

It indicates that the parents are pushing their child to get educated. Involved parents like that are more likely to get their kids into college, period, regardless of what school they go to. Tying it to charter schools misses the point, and is little more than a red herring.

[noamnety]

38. I think it shows something else.

not necessarily a level of motivation in education, but a growing sense that their neighborhood school is failing them in some way.

Personally, I suspect that's why the kids with similar grades and test scores are graduating and attending college at higher rates in charters. I don't think it's that the teachers or curriculum is "better." I think it's that they are better for those students. In some way those students are not being marginalized as much and instead are getting the message that education actually IS for them.

[annabanana]

15. Are they required to enroll students who have

physical, phsycological & behavioral problems? For what % of the enrollment do they provide meals? Is it the same percentage as in the public schools?

[noamnety]

19. We follow state laws.

So yes to the first question, same rules as traditional public schools apply - parents have the right to enroll their kids in the least restrictive environment. We've had kids with tourettes, with epilepsy, with autism, lead poisoning, fetal alcohol syndrome, you name it, they got it. If they are Severely Cognitively Impaired, they may be sent to a specialized facility - same as with traditional public schools.

For the second question, the state law in my state (not sure how it is elsewhere) is that a district with a K-12 program must have a lunch program, and they are in the regular state free and reduced lunch program, same exact reporting requirements, no difference.

If a district only has a high school (my situation), they can participate in that, but they aren't required to. My school began with a lunch program (with the free and reduced lunches). Then we switched to a building with no kitchen facility, so we can't by law have a lunch program because without the three sinks we can't meet health code inspections for that. Our workaround is a variation of the dreaded cheese sandwich program. :)

Our twist though is that it's not a punishment for not paying, we just have sandwich stuff on hand for anyone that wants to wander over and make a sandwich, no charge. Most kids bring their lunch, but if someone forgets or can't afford to bring a lunch, or can afford it but would rather take advantage of the community sandwich stuff, they just do it, no questions asked. There's no income test for that - and legally we can't impose one, because the law only lets us use free/reduced lunch data for the official program. Sometimes even teachers who forget a lunch will make a sandwich, and even after school kids who are hungry stop in and help themselves. It doesn't have the stigma here that it did in the infamous news report.

Percentages - the free/reduced lunch thing is self-reporting. Parents fill out the forms at their own initiative. Charters ON PAPER serve a slightly lower population of free/reduced lunches - but in the same ballpark. There's about a 2-5% discrepancy depending on which report you read. However, you need to take that with a grain of salt, because at our school for instance, with free lunch being provided for any student who asks for it, the motivation to fill out an official form to say "Hey I'm Poor" when the parent gets nothing in return is low. The prevailing belief (and mine based on experience) is that free/reduced eligibility is under-reported at charters because of this.

[spotbird]

25. How about random mandatory assignment by lottery?

If a kid is assigned a "superior" charter school, that's where he must go. If a little genius is assigned the traditional school he's stuck there. That would insure that there isn't cherry picking or inflated claims of success.

[noamnety]

28. That misses the point of many of the charters

A school is only "superior" if it meets the needs of a student.

Our school is for kids with an interest in fine and performing arts, and does not have sports, for example. So this would be a miserable experience for a lot of students whose high point in the day is being on the basketball or football team.

The claims of cherry picking are disingenuous at best and the "little genius" comment is coming across as rude on several levels (contempt for smart kids, deliberately misrepresenting the populations that charters serve). I think points come across better if you don't resort to mocking any of the students we're all trying to help.

[spotbird]

35. But if the students in charter

schools are different from those who remain in traditional schools, as you say, the comparisons between the two fail immediately. If the charter schools aren't at some level considered superior, there would be no reason for their existence, would there?

The simple fact is the charters may be better for some students, but they harm public education, and by extension the non-charter students. They are private schools funded publicly.

[noamnety]

39. wrong conclusion

"If the charter schools aren't at some level considered superior, there would be no reason for their existence, would there?"

What's superior for one student is not superior for another, which is the reason a one-size-fits-all traditional neighborhood school with no schools of choice option cannot by definition serve all of the students in the best way for them.

"They are private schools funded publicly." <-- that is an inaccurate statement.

[spotbird]

41. The comparison is false

The students are different.

[seabeyond]

54. reallyis the point. doesnt matter if my kid is private, charter, rich public or poor public

both my kids will do well and go one to college. it will not have ANYTHING to do with any of the schools, but all to do with the expectation in this house.

it matters

[SheilaT]

16. I recall reading several years ago

that charter schools' kids were more likely to do worse on the various standardized tests out there. Now that was a few years ago, and a lot may have changed since then. That study also indicated that the parents of students in charter schools were far more likely to be happy with their child's school than when they were in regular public school.

[proud2BlibKansan]

124. Our charters have lower test scores than our public schools

There is one that does pretty well but the rest of them have much lower test scores.

[AyanEva]

18. I'm torn on charter schools

In many cases, they provide a great learning environment for kids who wouldn't otherwise get one and the good charters have great results. On the other hand, it's pulling money away from public schools so that the kids who aren't able to get into charter schools suffer even more. Most of the schools have lotteries, very long waiting lists, or exams (and maybe your kid is smart but not good at a standardized tests) so you end up with high achievers stuck in a failing public school system. Properly fund the public schools and help many or fund smaller charter schools and help a few.

Do we concentrate on providing better opportunities for high achievers who might otherwise get bored and drop out or aren't receiving the attention and encourage they need to live up to their full potential? Or help those in public schools who might be struggling a bit more and level the playing field for everyone?

[noamnety]

20. I think you are mistaken on entrance exams

or confusing public and private schools here, or possibly confusing charters with magnet schools.

Public charters by law cannot use an entrance exam - if it's a public school, any student eligible for public school has an equal right to be there.

As the initial article noted, "students transferring to charter schools generally have below-average test scores."

[AyanEva]

22. Ah.

I believe I'm confusing charter with magnet in the case of testing. There is still the issue of loooong waiting lists and lottery-type systems, though. At least here anyway.

[noamnety]

31. magnets justify entrance exams

by being part of a traditional larger "district" - any student has equal access to "the district" and then the district uses the magnets for differentiated learning (gifted programs being part of that).

I don't know that I have a problem with that necessarily - it makes sense to have one robotics/calculus/engineering track for an entire district, for example, because districts can't fund it for each individual school, so it's a matter of maximizing students who can take advantage of specialized training.

The result is that traditional public schools have a mechanism for exclusionary access to educational opportunities that charters do not have.

Other magnets are more like charters in that they use a lottery system for schools specializing in different learning styles. My local district has a Montessori-style magnet.

[roody]

24. No surprise there. Their parents are paying enough attention

to choose a school.

[noamnety]

33. not necessarily.

That assumes students come here because of parent initiative. In my daughter's case, it was the other way around. She found out about it and announced she was going to the school, I was dragged along to an open house - I wasn't out looking for alternatives.

[spotbird]

37. Which, by definition, makes her a motivated student

There is motivation on some one's part, which makes comparisons between the charter school and traditional school invalid. You perfectly demonstrate the inherent flaw in the claim. Further, you are obviously enthusiastic about charters and your child's education.

[noamnety]

47. The motivation many times

is to be with their friends who are here, which is different than enrolling because of an interest in education.

You can draw conclusions as you wish, but they may or may not be based on accurate data or even personal observations.

[spotbird]

50. So what?

It is still a self-selected group of motivated students. Do you really not understand the significance?

[roody]

114. You have some good communication going--

a very important factor in student success.

[seabeyond]

27. doesnt the parent make the choices for this school? so the parents that participate in childrens

education, the parent that have an interest in the kids education is the parent at charter school. inda the argument that it isnt the school, but parents participation the is the success or failure of the child

charter school doesnt get the credit. all this does is sipher out the better students from the public school, which will cuase the school to deteriate more. this is why i was opposed the voucher system.

but it isnt the school and i think it is pretty evident. for this op to leave the obvious out is dishonest

[noamnety]

32. Most of our parents don't volunteer at all.

A lot of our kids decide to come because they have a friend here already - it's not always the parents' great sense of initiative. Heck, some of our kids don't even have functional parents.

As for the OP - I had it in late breaking news since it was a news report today, but the mods moved it to GD. :shrug:

As the late breaking news item, it was more obvious it was direct quotes, not my writing, but now it's too late to edit it to make it clear in this context.

[seabeyond]

34. ah. thanks i appreciate. i think there are some obvious reasons, common sense

why the numbers would be different and i think it would be short sited to use this as a base to say... this is what we need to fix. i too have a problem with a corporate school system. just lost all faith with them moving into our military and last decade of corp. also the inconsistency and leaving the education up for grab, per area.

i also think wiht vouchers it leaves the public schools hollowed and the must uninterested parents will be the ones leaving kids in that school

your students in the charter school are not walking distance for the most part and parent driving adn picking up alone will have to show some interest in the student

my kids did private and then i put them in the best school in town, a different district. so i too have to drive to pick up my kids. they are also an asset to the school. i tell them, sense they have been invited in, it is their job to excel helping the school as much as possible.

anyway

thanks

[noamnety]

44. Most aren't walking distance

we had to arrange with the city to add a bus route at start and ending times for our school, because some of the kids come from families that don't have cars, some come from single parent households where the parents work an odd shift and can't get them to or from the school. It's common for me to leave 2 hours after school is ended, and still see some other kids waiting around for rides.

Also several of our staff members have volunteered to drive students who live near them. I did that for a while, we had a student with autism who lived near me, her parents had no way to get her to the school because of work hours, and she wasn't a good candidate for riding a public bus.

There aren't vouchers, btw, for charters because they are part of the public school system - not sure if you were referencing private schools with that or not, but I wanted to make it clear for others reading it. When a student leaves a traditional school for a charter - the per pupil funding at the traditional school actually increases.

[seabeyond]

49. vouchers is the argument by repugs. i know not now.

back when checking schools there were no charter that were of interest in my area so i have really done no research on them in this area to learn about their academics. a kid down the street is going to a new charter, but really they would liek to get him into our public school, out of district and cant get him in. the private in this area just are not acadeically superior, or my kids would be in those. my biggest desire is to academically stimulate my kids the best we can for the area we live.

if you are happy with your charter, i am all for it and happy for you. i am glad you found a school that you are comfortable with your children. for me, that is such a huge thing. and i am glad you are that satisfied.

i am that satisfied with my kids public school

[spotbird]

51. So the families of these students

often must arrange for private transportation. If that is impossible, the student must attend public school.

[noamnety]

59. Nonstarter for debate - they already are attending public school. (nt)

[spotbird]

62. Traditional public school.

The not for profit kind.

[noamnety]

64. Nonstarter - they are already attending nonprofit noncorporate public school. (nt)

[spotbird]

72. So there is no need for charter schools

Since they are identical to traditional schools, according to you. And the traditionals come with the advantage of provided transportation!

And certainly there is no benefit in for-profit charters, since they don't even exist, according to you.

At last, a resolution.

[noamnety]

88. I'm glad you are posting here.

I'm trusting that others are recognizing the logical fallacies, and questioning why such an informed person needs to resort to this to try to persuade.

[spotbird]

90. No reasonable person compares unlike

things to prove a point. If your logical skills are representative of the best argument for charters, there is no societal benefit.

If you believe charter schools are good for your child, fine. The fact is they are bad for public education, you have said nothing that contradicts that.

[demmiblue]

61. This is a huge issue in economically depressed areas.

It is often the family that can afford transportation that is the one who has more options available, whether it be school of choice or charter schools. I don't know of any school system in my area that provides for transportation for choicers or charter schoolers (I admit that my knowledge is not that expansive, however, with budget cuts I would venture to say that most school systems simply do not have the resources). I don't understand why we can't focus on strengthening all public schools for all families. Talk about being left behind!

I know that was your point... just had to vent!

[noamnety]

65. Economic restrictions affect them regardless.

If they are in economically depressed areas, they don't have access to the better facilities in better districts - inequity is worse when kids are restricted based on where their parents can afford to live.

Yet I never hear people use that as the basis for arguing that traditional public schools shouldn't be allowed to exist.

[demmiblue]

71. That is simply not true.

Not to mention the fact that I never mentioned better districts. There are certainly schools within districts, charter or not, that are better than others. Those children/families who do not have the means, or parents that will advocate for them, are simply not allotted the same opportunities. Being unable to afford living in a better district should not prevent these children from getting a quality education (including an appreciation for the arts). That is the point.

[noamnety]

74. Whether or not you mentioned it, it remains true.

Students in Detroit are not attending facilities that are the same quality as the facilities in Bloomfield Hills. Bloomfield Hills has had the benefit of generations of higher funding. They have better lab equipment, they have swimming pools, heck, they have electricity. The Detroit kids are not allowed to go to school there.

Whether or not people in wealthier districts will acknowledge it, it IS true that there are inequities that we take for granted as a "normal" problem and somehow less outrageous than the fact that some kids have private transportation and others have to rely on buses or carpools.

It's a function of institutional racism that we are so quick to blame the cause of bad schools on "parents unwilling to advocate for their kids" when we are talking about inner city students. It draws on an ugly stereotype and doesn't reflect the real problems of power, oppression, and economics. Parents can advocate til they are blue in the face in Detroit, but they don't have the right to vote down bond issues in Bloomfield Hills, which is the cause of much of the inequities. And in Detroit, there simply isn't the tax base - again because of decades of racist policies and issues that are too lengthy to address in any meaningful way here.

I am all for people addressing those issues in public schools - but mostly what I see is people spending their time and effort advocating against one of the few working alternatives for these kids, rather than advocating for EQUITABLE funding. The reason is that those in the wealthier districts will not allow their resources to be diverted for the common good. And in the interim between now and when we GET equitable funding - which if the past is any indication will be generations - they offer nothing except preaching that it's immoral for the inner city kids to demand to attend a school that meets their needs best right now. Those would be the kids being left behind.

[demmiblue]

76. Oh, B.S.

I never said that bad schools are to be blamed on parents who are unwilling to advocate for their kids (nor did I mention Detroit... hmmm?). I said that some parents are not willing to advocate for their children in terms of finding other alternatives, and those who want to are sometimes not able. This is not racism (my thoughts were not limited to African Americans, but thanks for your assumpmtion), this is reality. And, yes, it is ugly. Why the need to make my post out in that way? Are you denying that there are a plethora of children out there that don't have someone to advocate for them? Are you denying that some children are lost in our educational system due to socioeconomic issues? Are you denying that appropriate funding will help these children?

"... which if the past is any indication will be generations - they offer nothing except preaching that it's immoral for the inner city kids to demand to attend a school that meets their needs best right now. Those would be the kids being left behind." Yep... let the least among us suffer. The ones who are not able. I guess they are less important.


Edit: spelling

[noamnety]

86. Wow, touchy.

I focused on Detroit because I'm in the Detroit area, not because I am making assumptions about your personal thought process, and I am sick of people saying "those people's schools suck because their parents can't get off their lazy asses to run for office or can't be bothered to advocate for their kids" as if that's the cause of the state of the schools in Detroit.

The tax base in richer (by correlation - whiter) communities is in a position to raise local funds for their richer (and by correlation whiter) schools, in a way that inner cities (particularly those who are dealing with the double oppression of class and race) cannot do.

It's ridiculous to pretend there isn't a race issue tied in with the failure of traditional public schools to serve all their students - when black students are disproportionately opting out of the system either through going to charters or dropping out entirely. Not acknowledging it doesn't make the issue disappear.

You know what would help the state of inner city schools far more than eliminating charters? A complete prohibition on any local taxes being raised for local schools. That's the biggest obstacle poor areas have. The rich people who can raise local taxes for their own schools keep the other rich folks happy. If you eliminated that, the ONLY way they could get decent facilities and equipment and programs at their schools is by advocating for enough state and federal taxes to raise the standard at ALL schools.

I'm not gonna hold my breath for that to happen, though - the same people who are outraged that a charter student has to cough up money for a bus pass to get to school don't seem to have a problem with that larger injustice - making me suspect they benefit from it in some way. It's a lot easier to howl about injustices when it doesn't mean having to give up some of your own privilege, especially if it means that *your* student might have to spend a couple years in a school without electricity.

[demmiblue]

98. Why, yes, I am touchy! Thank you very much!

Sometimes it is hard to speak in behalf of those who need... especially in the face of those that make no sense!

[trudyco]

85. This is true in our case. We are not in the worst neighborhood but we are from the best

We had the option of trying a lottery system to get into one of the charters or another traditional public school in the district. We were told we could probably get in the traditional school but it would be very competitive to get in the charters. The traditional school was still following the district's flawed curriculum and we knew one of our children would not thrive in that curriculum. So we tried the charters. Didn't even get close to getting in (35 on a waiting list). There is that high of a demand.

Next year we may try the other traditional public school. At least it has better teachers.

[trudyco]

84. We carpooled - most I know who live at a distance do.

I know one homeschooled girl who decided to go to a charter school in middle school. Her parent was still homeschooling her siblings. So she figured out how to take public transportation. Traditional public school didn't work for her. This charter, however, motivated her to figure out a way to get there. Parent was ambivalent so it really was the child's determination. It was an hour and a half each way.

I'm just glad she had the option. Now the charter school has been nationally recognized and the waiting list is long. There is no mandate that districts with successful charter schools and long wait lists either expand the schools or start a similar one somewhere else in the district. Too bad for us. We have a lottery system in our district, although the gifted school discourages kids who wouldn't be able to keep up.

Look up, I think it's called "New Visions school" or "A Chance To Grow" in Minnesota. It is a charter school that works with kids in the bottom 50% on state testing. So they discriminate. I think there are valid cases where a blanket lottery is a bad idea. Do you really think it is a bad school and should be banned? These kids came from the traditional public schools that failed them. They don't look particularly rich or white or over motivated. I donate to their after school programs every year, trying to help out at least one family that can't afford it otherwise.

Regards

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Are charter schools required to take children with developmental disabilities? n/t

[noamnety]

101. The federal IDEA applies to all public schools districts.

This includes charters. Some have management run by public employees and some by contractors - but they still are public schools.

In our case, our charter is an independent school district (part of the county system of school districts). So within our school we have to make appropriate accommodations for our kids with IEPs, and federal law prohibits discriminating against them.

In some areas (apparently Kansas) a traditional public school district which would include several elementary, middle and high schools can also have charters. They may decide as a district that they will provide accommodations for kids with special needs in other ways to conserve money. In that case it's not a district discriminating, it's the elected public school board deciding that the most efficient way for them to use dollars effectively is to keep special ed kids in their neighborhood school. Other than anecdotal on this forum I haven't heard of that happening, but if it did it wouldn't be a decision by the charter to exclude kids - it would be a deliberate decision by the school board to retain those kids in their neighborhood school.

(IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. Thanks for the info.

:hi:

[Geek_Girl]

100. The Magnet schools in my area require the Parent to volunteer 20hours

If this is stands true for most magnet schools than I would claim parent participation is the main reason why these children have a better chance at college. Any child that has a parent that is actively involved in their education stands a better chance at college.

[noamnety]

102. Magnets aren't charters.

Different beast, not addressed in the article.

[olegramps]

128. Exactly. Kids whose parents are concerned and involved have a better chance of succeeding.

[noamnety]

129. Assuming that is the main reason

(and I'm not convinced it is), my next question would be why do you think the parents who are most concerned and involved have come to the conclusion that the traditional public schools can't or won't serve their children's needs - even with their involvement?

[juno jones]

115. My son attended a public (ie CA school district ) charter school.

He has some learning problems that were helped immensely by the classroom style of the charter, ie: schoolroom with multiple grade levels and the same teacher for two to three years. He wound up with a wonderful teacher who got him reading and performing much better in schoolwork than he had in traditional school. He is now in another public alternitive school that deals with both the kids who are attending 'Running Start', a program where HS students attend college (like he is ) and the kids who have problems.

Some kids need a smaller classroom and more stability as far as teachers who can address their needs over the long term. The traditional method of changing teachers every year/semester doesn't really allow for that. You might find a great teacher one year and the next year be fighting because the teacher is not accomdating and your kid hates school and doesn't want to go. My kid and many others benefit from the charter style of teaching.

Not all charter schools are bad. It really seems to depend on where one is located.

[lonestarnot]

121. Why because parents have mo money?