| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2006 05:20:16 PM |
| Object: |
Myth-shattering study reveals: Charter school kids come out stupider. |
From a New York Times editorial, 8/27/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/opinion/27sun1.html
Exploding the Charter School Myth
A federal study showing that fourth graders in charter schools score
worse in reading and math than their public school counterparts should
cause some soul-searching in Congress.
Too many lawmakers seem to believe that the only thing wrong with
American education is the public school system, and that converting
lagging schools to charter schools would cause them to magically
improve.
The study, based on data from 2003 on students’ performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, found charter school
students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts.
But it also showed that not all charter schools are created equal.
On average, charter schools that were affiliated with public school
districts performed just as well as traditional public schools.
That may be a disappointment to advocates who expected them to show
clear superiority.
But the real stunner was the performance of free-standing charter
schools, which have no affiliation with public school systems and are
often school districts unto themselves.
It was this grouping that showed the worst performance.
Free-standing charter schools often bite off more than they can chew.
The presumption is that without the bureaucratic restraints of the
public school system and the teacher unions, charter schools can
provide better education at lower cost.
But the problem with failing public schools is that they often lack
both resources and skilled, experienced teachers.
While there are obvious exceptions, some charter schools embark on a
path that simply recreates the failures of the schools they were
developed to replace.
Charter school advocates denounced the new federal study even before
it was released and took issue with its methodology, which is not
perfect.
But this study does not stand alone.
The evidence so far shows that charter schools are not inherently
superior to the traditional public schools they often seek to supplant
-- and that they are sometimes worse.
One advantage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was the wave of
education studies it started.
They offer hope that Congress will look at the record when it
considers reauthorizing the law next year.
If it does, lawmakers will back away from the part of the act that
offers charter schools as a cure-all.
They should instead home in on the all-important but largely neglected
issue of teacher training and preparation -- which trumps everything
when it comes to improving student achievement.
These studies argue for a more nuanced federal policy that does not
just advocate wholesale charter conversion but instead defines and
supports successful models only.
Beyond that, Congress needs to grasp the obvious, which is that the
quality of the teacher corps is more crucial to school reform than
anything else.
The original law required states to provide highly qualified teachers
in core subject areas by this year.
But the Education Department simply failed to enforce the rule, partly
because of back-channel interference by lawmakers who talked like
ardent reformers while covering up for state officials clinging to the
bad old status quo.
Four years later, the national teacher corps is still in a shambles.
Until Congress changes that, everything else will amount to little
more than tinkering at the margins.
_________________________________________________________
"Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
Georgie Dimwit Bush -- Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "DefendUSA.blogspot.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Myth-shattering study reveals: Charter school kids come out stupider. |
27 Aug 2006 08:21:53 PM |
|
|
The real issue is not that Charter schools perform worse than public
schools, despite having more resources, but instead, why do so many
people push for Charter schools given their record? Anyone pushing for
better education more cheaply would push for the banning of Charter
Schools. Instead, Republicans push for more. Since it appears that
neither saving money nor improving the level of education is the goal
of the Republican party, what is their goal?
---------------------------------------------
bumperstickers:http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1261/1990/1600/Soldiervssoldier.jpg
Harry Hope wrote:
From a New York Times editorial, 8/27/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/opinion/27sun1.html
Exploding the Charter School Myth
A federal study showing that fourth graders in charter schools score
worse in reading and math than their public school counterparts should
cause some soul-searching in Congress.
Too many lawmakers seem to believe that the only thing wrong with
American education is the public school system, and that converting
lagging schools to charter schools would cause them to magically
improve.
The study, based on data from 2003 on students' performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, found charter school
students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts.
But it also showed that not all charter schools are created equal.
On average, charter schools that were affiliated with public school
districts performed just as well as traditional public schools.
That may be a disappointment to advocates who expected them to show
clear superiority.
But the real stunner was the performance of free-standing charter
schools, which have no affiliation with public school systems and are
often school districts unto themselves.
It was this grouping that showed the worst performance.
Free-standing charter schools often bite off more than they can chew.
The presumption is that without the bureaucratic restraints of the
public school system and the teacher unions, charter schools can
provide better education at lower cost.
But the problem with failing public schools is that they often lack
both resources and skilled, experienced teachers.
While there are obvious exceptions, some charter schools embark on a
path that simply recreates the failures of the schools they were
developed to replace.
Charter school advocates denounced the new federal study even before
it was released and took issue with its methodology, which is not
perfect.
But this study does not stand alone.
The evidence so far shows that charter schools are not inherently
superior to the traditional public schools they often seek to supplant
-- and that they are sometimes worse.
One advantage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was the wave of
education studies it started.
They offer hope that Congress will look at the record when it
considers reauthorizing the law next year.
If it does, lawmakers will back away from the part of the act that
offers charter schools as a cure-all.
They should instead home in on the all-important but largely neglected
issue of teacher training and preparation -- which trumps everything
when it comes to improving student achievement.
These studies argue for a more nuanced federal policy that does not
just advocate wholesale charter conversion but instead defines and
supports successful models only.
Beyond that, Congress needs to grasp the obvious, which is that the
quality of the teacher corps is more crucial to school reform than
anything else.
The original law required states to provide highly qualified teachers
in core subject areas by this year.
But the Education Department simply failed to enforce the rule, partly
because of back-channel interference by lawmakers who talked like
ardent reformers while covering up for state officials clinging to the
bad old status quo.
Four years later, the national teacher corps is still in a shambles.
Until Congress changes that, everything else will amount to little
more than tinkering at the margins.
_________________________________________________________
"Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
Georgie Dimwit Bush -- Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: Myth-shattering study reveals: Charter school kids come out stupider. |
27 Aug 2006 09:50:16 PM |
|
|
"DefendUSA.blogspot.com" <defendusa2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156728113.224327.79770@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The real issue is not that Charter schools perform worse than public
schools, despite having more resources, but instead, why do so many
people push for Charter schools given their record? Anyone pushing for
better education more cheaply would push for the banning of Charter
Schools. Instead, Republicans push for more. Since it appears that
neither saving money nor improving the level of education is the goal
of the Republican party, what is their goal?
Conservatives and religious reichers aroound here push for charter schools
as a way of publicly funding a near private education, and a s astepping
stone to direct public finding of private educations.
The same legislators who have introduced legilsation every year to expand
public funding ov christian schools has pushed the charter school movement.
Around here charter cschools are as close to christian schools as you can
get, without the prayer. They are based on "social and moral " values, not
education.
BTW, and earlier study of hese NEAP scors put religous school education
below even charter schools.
Larry
Larry
---------------------------------------------
bumperstickers:http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1261/1990/1600/Soldiervssoldier.jpg
Harry Hope wrote:
From a New York Times editorial, 8/27/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/opinion/27sun1.html
Exploding the Charter School Myth
A federal study showing that fourth graders in charter schools score
worse in reading and math than their public school counterparts should
cause some soul-searching in Congress.
Too many lawmakers seem to believe that the only thing wrong with
American education is the public school system, and that converting
lagging schools to charter schools would cause them to magically
improve.
The study, based on data from 2003 on students' performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, found charter school
students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts.
But it also showed that not all charter schools are created equal.
On average, charter schools that were affiliated with public school
districts performed just as well as traditional public schools.
That may be a disappointment to advocates who expected them to show
clear superiority.
But the real stunner was the performance of free-standing charter
schools, which have no affiliation with public school systems and are
often school districts unto themselves.
It was this grouping that showed the worst performance.
Free-standing charter schools often bite off more than they can chew.
The presumption is that without the bureaucratic restraints of the
public school system and the teacher unions, charter schools can
provide better education at lower cost.
But the problem with failing public schools is that they often lack
both resources and skilled, experienced teachers.
While there are obvious exceptions, some charter schools embark on a
path that simply recreates the failures of the schools they were
developed to replace.
Charter school advocates denounced the new federal study even before
it was released and took issue with its methodology, which is not
perfect.
But this study does not stand alone.
The evidence so far shows that charter schools are not inherently
superior to the traditional public schools they often seek to supplant
-- and that they are sometimes worse.
One advantage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was the wave of
education studies it started.
They offer hope that Congress will look at the record when it
considers reauthorizing the law next year.
If it does, lawmakers will back away from the part of the act that
offers charter schools as a cure-all.
They should instead home in on the all-important but largely neglected
issue of teacher training and preparation -- which trumps everything
when it comes to improving student achievement.
These studies argue for a more nuanced federal policy that does not
just advocate wholesale charter conversion but instead defines and
supports successful models only.
Beyond that, Congress needs to grasp the obvious, which is that the
quality of the teacher corps is more crucial to school reform than
anything else.
The original law required states to provide highly qualified teachers
in core subject areas by this year.
But the Education Department simply failed to enforce the rule, partly
because of back-channel interference by lawmakers who talked like
ardent reformers while covering up for state officials clinging to the
bad old status quo.
Four years later, the national teacher corps is still in a shambles.
Until Congress changes that, everything else will amount to little
more than tinkering at the margins.
_________________________________________________________
"Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
Georgie Dimwit Bush -- Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Myth-shattering study reveals: Charter school kids come out stupider. |
27 Aug 2006 08:37:16 PM |
|
|
Ans: To destroy free public education ofr all.
DefendUSA.blogspot.com wrote:
The real issue is not that Charter schools perform worse than public
schools, despite having more resources, but instead, why do so many
people push for Charter schools given their record? Anyone pushing for
better education more cheaply would push for the banning of Charter
Schools. Instead, Republicans push for more. Since it appears that
neither saving money nor improving the level of education is the goal
of the Republican party, what is their goal?
---------------------------------------------
bumperstickers:http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1261/1990/1600/Soldiervssoldier.jpg
Harry Hope wrote:
From a New York Times editorial, 8/27/06:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/opinion/27sun1.html
Exploding the Charter School Myth
A federal study showing that fourth graders in charter schools score
worse in reading and math than their public school counterparts
should cause some soul-searching in Congress.
Too many lawmakers seem to believe that the only thing wrong with
American education is the public school system, and that converting
lagging schools to charter schools would cause them to magically
improve.
The study, based on data from 2003 on students' performance on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress, found charter school
students significantly behind their non-charter-school counterparts.
But it also showed that not all charter schools are created equal.
On average, charter schools that were affiliated with public school
districts performed just as well as traditional public schools.
That may be a disappointment to advocates who expected them to show
clear superiority.
But the real stunner was the performance of free-standing charter
schools, which have no affiliation with public school systems and are
often school districts unto themselves.
It was this grouping that showed the worst performance.
Free-standing charter schools often bite off more than they can chew.
The presumption is that without the bureaucratic restraints of the
public school system and the teacher unions, charter schools can
provide better education at lower cost.
But the problem with failing public schools is that they often lack
both resources and skilled, experienced teachers.
While there are obvious exceptions, some charter schools embark on a
path that simply recreates the failures of the schools they were
developed to replace.
Charter school advocates denounced the new federal study even before
it was released and took issue with its methodology, which is not
perfect.
But this study does not stand alone.
The evidence so far shows that charter schools are not inherently
superior to the traditional public schools they often seek to
supplant -- and that they are sometimes worse.
One advantage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 was the wave of
education studies it started.
They offer hope that Congress will look at the record when it
considers reauthorizing the law next year.
If it does, lawmakers will back away from the part of the act that
offers charter schools as a cure-all.
They should instead home in on the all-important but largely
neglected issue of teacher training and preparation -- which trumps
everything when it comes to improving student achievement.
These studies argue for a more nuanced federal policy that does not
just advocate wholesale charter conversion but instead defines and
supports successful models only.
Beyond that, Congress needs to grasp the obvious, which is that the
quality of the teacher corps is more crucial to school reform than
anything else.
The original law required states to provide highly qualified teachers
in core subject areas by this year.
But the Education Department simply failed to enforce the rule,
partly because of back-channel interference by lawmakers who talked
like ardent reformers while covering up for state officials clinging
to the bad old status quo.
Four years later, the national teacher corps is still in a shambles.
Until Congress changes that, everything else will amount to little
more than tinkering at the margins.
_________________________________________________________
"Rarely is the question asked, are, is our children learning?"
Georgie Dimwit Bush -- Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
