Charter Schools: Time to Cull the Herd

Charter schools fail. That's big news coming from Education Secretary Arnie Duncan, a long time supporter of charters. He has correctly observed that the quality of charters is grossly uneven. The solution: apply the standards movement to charter schools. Sec. Duncan gave a speech this week in which he challenged the key charter states to start holding charter schools accountable and not giving them a pass. It's critical that they take his advice if they are to contribute to any real educational improvement.

Charters are supposed to be on the cutting edge of public education; it's where innovation can be tested. The theory of charters is that they are freed from bureaucratic entanglements in return for producing better outcomes. So when charters fail, they should be closed. According to a Stanford study that was released just last week, 37% of charters studied showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46% of charters showing no significant difference. In short, it's time to cull the herd.

The larger issue is whether charters are worth all the trouble. On balance, I think they are. Today, less than 3% of our 50 million K-12 students are educated in charter schools. Although a relatively small number, they include some of the most innovative, thought-provoking experiments in education today, ranging from teacher union-run charters to academies of finance. Most importantly, they attract highly interested parents and passionate teachers. I have personally facilitated several charters - both as NY Schools Chancellor and through private charity. On the other hand, I was the first Chancellor to close charters because they were failing. We need to do both.

Secretary Duncan's speech is well-timed and courageous, and deserves support. The next step would be for him to encourage states to apply the same standards to private and religious schools, many of which routinely perform worse than public schools. Paying tuition is no guaranty of quality. There is no excuse for children graduating without fundamental reading and analytic skills. That applies to public and charter schools as well as private institutions. Applying standards across the board demonstrate real courage.

See huffingtonpost.com/new-york for more New York news and blogs

Comments

[pfrogger]

lies I tell you, all lies. damn liberals and their numbers.
everyone knows any private institution will do better than a government-run "socialist" one.

sure there is the police and fire department. and usually, except for some bad apples, they do a decent job. but that doesn't matter. than there's the sanitation department, the us post office, and all the other government agencies that keep the private ones in check. and sure before the checks on corporations and safety standards, these corporations polluted the environment, used inhuman working conditions, set the wage as low as possible without concern for a living wage, and they also used to mix rats and other animals in with the regular meat, and treated their workers and consumers as means to an end. but numbers don't matter. this is America, and money matters.
so let's privatize everything, including the government. well they're already owned by big business so that job's done. who's with me for privatizing everything?

[normathumb]

The original idea for Charter schools came out of the unions. The idea was to create school labs under the auspices of existing districts where new strategies and methodologies could be tried out and brought back into the at large district. Charters were not, originally, meant to be free standing independent private academies. Charter schools were also, in their original conception, never meant to be permanent. They would have specific modalities spelled out and implemented. Did the modalities produce positive change? Implement it in the district. If not, shut it down and move on. The whole concept for charter schools has been co-opted and corrupted by an anti union, anti public school lobby. It marches hand in hand with those who want public funding for religious schools.

[goldgoose]

Arne is actually a good guy and he improved the statistics of Chicago schools. But, statistics are not what is important; students are important and after students, teachers are important. Arne never had to look a public school student in the eye and say to them, "Your future depends on me, kid, and all I can to is try the best of my ability!"
Never trust your life or the value of your life to a statistician!
Statistics are helpful, but certainly not the answer!

[goldgoose]

Just found an error in my previous post. "public school immigration' should be "public school educations". Sorry, I blame it on the computer and not my psyche!

[goldgoose]

There is no empirical evidence that charter schools are superior to any other public schools!

[goldgoose]

Arne Duncan never had the responsibility for thirty five students in a classroom. There is lots about public education he does not understand. One thing he doesn't understand is that charter schools detract from other public schools; they take from the student norm of other schools and they take funding from other public schools. Charter schools are promoted by critics and opponents of public schools who do not believe ion democratic public school immigration. Charter schools segregate by class!
The other thing Arne doesn't understand is that testing students with 'standardized' tests is not appropriate for evaluating teachers. Students and teachers are human beings and not statistics. Statistics depend upon all the variable of a test being fully considered. It is impossible to factor the emotional and pysiological effests of human beings in testing achievement and tests of achievement are not per se tests of teacher quality; there is more to teacing than indoctrinating students in the multiplication table.
To fully understand, you have to spend 30 years in the trenches of public school politics.

[PavePusher]

"According to a Stanford study that was released just last week, 37% of charters studied showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46% of charters showing no significant difference. In short, it's time to cull the herd."

Since Charter schools generally start off at a higher level than main-stream public schools, lack of "gains" is hardly a good enough reason to shut them down. Why don't we compare actual school performance as an indicator, rather than insist that a school with already excellent results be forced to show "gains" as a raison d'etre.

[Rule Of Law]

Well, first, there's this--

Harold Levy

Former Chancellor of New York City's public schools

Think he might have an axe to grind?

Second, there's this--

"Charter schools fail."

Do they? Or is this the more accurate statement--

"...that the quality of charters is grossly uneven."

And if the second statement is a closer approximation of the truth, then that would make charters not a whole lot different from other schools. And if they are not, then why does the Former Chancellor of New York City's public schools feel threatened enough by them to feel the need to weigh in on the topic?

Sorry Mr. Levy--it is you who fail.

[goldgoose]

There is NO empirical evidence that charter schools are 'better' than comparable ordinary public schools with a comparable student body!

[Rule Of Law]

So his argument fails on that basis. He sets us up to buy the notion that they are supposed to be betteer, and then when it seems ( in his opinion ) that they are not, he says, let's take control here!

Your statement, is in fact, correct. And it was never meant to be about differing levels of education or performance, but about choice, which I get the distinct feeling Mr. Levy is opposed to.