Louie Lemming stopped to pluck a berry. "Hurry up, Louie!" cousin Larry shouted. "We are behind and we have to catch up."
"Where are we going?"
"Not sure, but hurry."
"Louie, shouldn't we do some research before we head off?"
"Not necessary," replied Louie. "The Tri-City Herald says it's a good place to go."
So Louie and Larry pursued the crowd heading toward charter school heaven.
Had they done the research:
-- Charter schools typically hand over public funds to education management firms with no public oversight. Cheating and financial scandals abound.
-- Charter schools typically attract, contrary to Herald, fewer low-income and special education students and virtually no English language learners or children with severe disabilities (high-cost students stay in the public school).
-- Charters with the highest success rates have the highest attrition rates. Low performers either leave or are pushed back to the local school.
And how successful are they? A national study by Stanford University found that 37 percent of public schools outperformed matched-school charters and 46 percent were essentially the same. Wow! Then what could be behind the charter school movement? Follow the money.
Larry and Louie?
The last lemming meets the same fate as the first.
-- Bob Valiant, Kennewick
Similar stories:
Fast Focus: Look beyond propaganda
Fast Focus: Look beyond propaganda
As we consider charter schools for our state we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of charter schools and take a hard look at research on charter schools.
If the purpose of charter schools is to increase the academic performance of our students, the broad research on the academic performance of charter schools compared to traditional public schools is mixed at best.
There is no agreement among researchers that charter schools outperform public schools.
Fast Focus: Not the answer
Fast Focus: Not the answer
Charter schools have been tried across the country for 20 years. They are no magic bullet. They are just an alternative way of organizing schools that runs the risk of reducing oversight, and especially local oversight, of the expenditure of public funds.
In 2009, Stanford University published the only comprehensive assessment of the performance of charter schools. The study, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States, encompassed more than 70 percent of the charter school students in the United States.
The study found that 37 percent of all charters had significantly worse academic outcomes than traditional public schools, and 46 percent, or nearly half, did no better than a traditional public school with similar demographics. In other words, there was an 83 percent chance that a randomly selected charter school would either do significantly worse or no better than a traditional public school.
Fast Focus: Giving charters low grades
Fast Focus: Giving charters low grades
Washington voters have rejected charter schools three times for good reason.
In a 16-state study of 2,403 charter schools conducted by Stanford University, charter schools performed no better than typical public schools (credo.stanford.edu). Also, the researchers state, "failing charter schools often have powerful and persuasive supporters in their communities who feel strongly that shutting down this school does not serve the best interests of currently enrolled students."
Parents Across America (parentsacrossamerica.org) reports on problems with charter schools, including a lack of transparency and accountability, discriminatory policies and practices, enrolling fewer English language learners, discipline policies that are unduly punitive, low-performing students who are encouraged to leave and charging burdensome fees and penalties. It is reasonable to assume that not all charter schools display these problems, but they are all too common.
It's time to take a look at charter schools (again)
It's time to take a look at charter schools (again)
Washington voters have rejected charter schools three times but things are different now.
Today, we are one of only eight states that don't allow charter schools. It's not always a good idea to follow the herd, but when everyone else is on a different path, it's prudent to find out why.
In any case, there is an advantage to being one of the last to join the party. Other states already have broken ground, leaving a smooth path for those that follow.
Fast Focus: Everyone wins
Fast Focus: Everyone wins
Yes. We should support charter schools. A definition: Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.
It's that "accountability" word and the "freed from some of the rules, regulations" that really sound like an opportunity for teachers, students and administrators to shine. Possibly parents even would get more involved -- everybody wins.
If some factions that don't contribute directly to kids' education, like unions, mandate administrators, etc., have to lose, then good.
Print
Email Story
