<p>We have a case in our area where a charter school was founded, the incompetent founder has packed its administration with incompetent family members, and good teachers (one a best friend) are fleeing. This is all in the open, but there are no rules preventing it; the charter program allows this independence. Hopefully market forces (students’ parents) will eventually shut this one down, because government hasn’t.</p>
<p>I am afraid to say the charter school movement may have been founded with all the best intentions but mark my words it will be co-opted to line the pockets of the politically connected. Follow the money.</p>
<p>spidey if a school accepts payment from the government via voucher should they follow the sames rules that public schools follow in terms of the removal of disruptive or disinterested students? For example my SIL was given the honor of having a convicted rapist in her class. Do you think that would have a negative impact on the class?</p>
<p>vonlost
Was government involved in its formation? Involved in any way now? If not, and if it operates like a private school, then unhappy customers will go elsewhere.</p>
<p>If charter schools are in the government’s control, if they are influenced by the politically connected, then I guess we haven’t yet seen what market forces could do with a real voucher system. Oh wait, we kind of have - that is the private school system.</p>
<p>If private schools accept a voucher from the government they should operate the way independent schools operate. The whole idea is for the government to give a citizen the voucher and then get the heck out of the way.</p>
<p>spidey that is fine but do not compare the results to public schools that must educate every child. The result unlike a private school is that you can not boot the uninterested or disruptive kid. If you do not feel that impacts the results of education than you are not making a fair comparison.
If public schools could eliminate poor performing students do you think they might show better results?</p>
<p>Some of us got out of public school for the precise reason of not wanting our kids to be taught to the lowest denominator. I am glad we have that choice.</p>
<p>Tom1944 do you really think, with the high number of private schools competing for warm bodies to fill seats (especially in this economy!), that private schools can easily boot kids who are underperforming? Not true. Even prestigious schools have empty seats today. Are you talking about Andover and places like that? These are rare places, and results are not typical. Most private schools have lots of underperforming and unmotivated students. What distinguishes them is that they can take a kid like that and do more with them. If you have a kid who is struggling (even disruptive), private schools are often better environments for change in a positive direction. A lot can be done with a kid who is a mess in a classroom. </p>
<p>Never give up on kids and sentence them to long term in an underperforming school. It just isn’t right. So much change is possible for people who are still growing, and we owe it to kids to keep trying to find ways to help them to achieve their best.</p>
<p>It is true private schools don’t have to admit everyone-however, it is a fallacy that public schools are always better at educating kids who have for instance challenging needs- like being " twice- gifted" for example, gifted w learning disabilities.</p>
<p>My oldest was told straight out ( or I was told) that they didn’t have a place for her in public, because she was never going to test two grades ahead in every subject, but neither was she going to test two grades behind. Private school provided support for her spectrum of interests and skills whereas public school admitted they wouldn’t even try.</p>
<p>“that private schools can easily boot kids who are underperforming?”</p>
<p>I think the term “private schools” is overloaded in this context. In this area (I don’t know about others) expensive private schools don’t accept underperformers in the first place, and have waiting lines to take the place of those who become problems. Schools with more moderate prices (e.g., Catholic) may have more of these problems.</p>
<p>In this area (I don’t know about others) expensive private schools don’t accept underperformers in the first place,</p>
<p>Smaller class sizes and curriculum that the teacher choses rather than the district in private schools allow " expensive" schools to have students other than linear learners and to be responsive to the needs of the class.</p>
<p>Class sizes in our local public schools are often 32 in elementary- in private school they might be half that.</p>
<p>oldfort- I am not against vouchers completely. In some limited circumstances I support them. What I am attempting to point out is that public and private schools are different. In some very important aspects private schools have inherent advantages over public schools beyond the ability to remove disruptive students and not accept weaker students. One that is obvious is that just by sending their children to private schools you are going to have greater parental involvement. In fact many private schools require it. Not so in a public school.
I believe teacher tenure and teacher unions is an insignificant factor in the overall scheme of the performance of public versus private school students.</p>
<p>Because parents of private school kids voluntarily pay extra, we know these parents care about their kids’ education. There will be a higher percentage of public school parents who don’t share these values, resulting in a higher percentage of unmotivated kids at public schools. Parents unmotivated or unable to pay anything along with a voucher will leave their kids in the public school. So for a voucher to do these kids some good, it must cover the full private school fee. Is that happening anywhere?</p>
<p>Firefighters seem to be the only public employees that have remained free of the constant barrage of criticism, sniping and resentment from large segments of the public. </p>
<p>Our nation seems to have lost the “glue” of a shared sense of social responsibility for each other. That makes me more nervous about the future than our economic problems. Nothing, it would seem, can make us pull together any more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with your assumption that private schools have an “advantage” when it comes to removing disruptive students and rejecting weaker ones. Public school can and do remove disruptive students, and private schools are often well equipped to help the student rather than kick them out. The vast majority of private schools do not reject kids who are weaker academically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tenure and teacher’s unions are probably the number one factor differentiating public and private school performance. Again, watch Waiting For Superman (and you are wrong if you think, as I believe you mentioned before, that what the movie is showing is that administrations are to blame). Class size is another big one, but a masterful, motivated teacher can still do a lot with a crammed classroom. Not ideal, but still not insurmountable for the Supermen or Superwomen of the profession.</p>
<p>Waiting for Superman is no more valid than Michael Moore’s Sicko. Both movies were made with an agenda to prove a point. According to the Founder of Teach for America who is no fan of tenure or unions both are hyped as the real problem but actual data shows that not to be true. She says the turnover rate for teachers in public and private schools is basically the same. As is the termination rate.
Now what data do you have that private schools do not have an easier time having disruptive students removed? Would they be educating the rapist that sat in my SIL’s class? That seems to me to be a very poor business decision.</p>
<p>Why do most objective measures indicate high unionized States have better results?</p>
<p>Private and charter schools have an advantage in that weaker, less motivated students either don’t apply or drop out when the demands become too great. I speak from experience, having taught 18 years in a title I school (more than 98% low-income students, with high mobility, PTSD, chronic poverty, etc.) A few of our more determined, organized and parentally-supported students apply to the local charter schools or district magnet programs. I’ve seend quite a few of our kids return to the regular district programs at the middle school because they find the demands of work too high, and/or parental support to help meet those demands is not there. Not surprisingly, scores and behavior and all are very good at the magnet programs and charter scores…
Yes - for one to three days. Then, they’re B.A.C.K.! Believe me, I’ve seen a lot of extremely disruptive, hostile, angry, dangerous kids in my day. We work with them and love them and get them counseling and all - but, they don’t GO anywhere. They remain in the public school system.</p>
<p>Spideygirl,
have you ever taught in a classroom? Your comment about class size is typical of the portion of the public that fails to recognize some of the very basic issues that are hindering education today. Class size is the number one factor effecting the delivery of curriculum to a diverse and ever more demanding population of children. I have some classes of 29 or 30 kids. Do you honestly believe that i can provide the same educational experience to those children as I can to classes of 20? It is so easy to say that teachers just need to show a little more creativity or ingenuity when presented with large classes but it’s really just a question of simple math. One teacher vs. 30 students as opposed to one teacher vs. 20 students. My attention for 45 minutes is going to be divided by the number of kids that need me. And in any given class there are 3-5 kids on IEPs or 504 plans that need even more attention or need the lesson modified to their needs. I can be as “masterful and motivated” as all get out but that won’t change that equation.</p>
<p>If you have some free time and the willingness to do so, go volunteer at a school near you. I’m sure the “Supermen and Superwomen” of the profession would appreciate another set of hands. I know I would.</p>
<p>I described class size as a problem, EPTR, just not the number one problem. Also, I have taught in a classroom, and I have volunteered to help out as well (lots and lots of times). </p>
<p>There are exceptional teachers who provide an excellent educational experience in demanding, crowded classrooms (including kids with 504’s and IEP’s).</p>
<p>Yes, there are but in what other profession would successful employees be described as superwomen and supermen? Why does it have to take Herculean effort to do our jobs well?</p>
<p>IMO, that is part of the unhealthy attitude of many people toward the teaching profession. I blame much of this on the fact that it is a traditionally female dominated field and that brings a whole slew of expectations that would not be present if it were populated by more men. Women are expected to do whatever it takes, against whatever odds to be superwoman in the classroom because to do any less would make us less “motherly”. </p>
<p>Let’s not forget that it is, in fact a job.</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Kos: I Don’t Want to be a Teacher Any More](<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/26/950079/-I-Dont-Want-to-be-a-Teacher-Any-More]Daily”>I Don't Want to be a Teacher Any More)</p>
<p>wbow:
I see all those things happening in the two districts by me.</p>