Syncronicity: That second article mentions charter schools

Post #323,063 by drook 3/18/10 8:46:11 AM Reply	Syncronicity: That second article mentions charter schools Assuming the discussion in that other thread is correct -- and I've got no reason to doubt it -- it's possible to run a charter school worse than any public school. And to do it long enough to get paid well before bailing out. Yup, just like any corporation. There's a good lesson here. If those in charge (of whatever) violate the public trust, the public will eventually replace them with something else, and -- at first -- it probably won't be as good as what they're replacing. Whether the new thing will last long enough to become better than the old thing is an open question. -- Drew
Post #323,083 by Ashton 3/18/10 2:41:17 PM Reply	New Rules! Aggregated: Any attempt to alter a present untenable situation is bound to make even wealthier the present limpets on the body publica. Since 'progress' is thus a chimera ... Draft preface to manuscript, Inside the Reactionary Mind: wear enclosed welding glasses and ear plugs in back-flap.
Post #323,144 by mhuber 3/20/10 3:10:49 AM Reply	For certain values of "worse": design feature The basic concept of a charter school is that it is free of the burdensome regulations that hamper the regular schools. But the thing people forget is that today's burdensome are yesterday's glorious high standards that solve problems. So charter schools are actually designed to suck by the standards in place. To repeat the mistakes that inspired the burdensome regulations. There is a well-observed and measurable New Program effect. Almost anything new you do in a school will result in dramatic improvements. It doesn't matter what the new program is, it can be utter nonsense, and it will fix things for a while. The only exceptions are ideas bad enough that the damage exceeds the new program effect. And a lot of charter schools in Wisconsin are that bad. A number of them were outright frauds. Paid kickbacks to parents and didn't waste money hiring teachers or staff. Some charter schools existed only on paper and collected money for kids who never showed up to classes that were never held. Even worse: the thousands of day care centers that sprang up so that Tommy Thompson (Remember GWB's idiot health and human services guy who's skill in handling the flu vaccine shortage probably killed more Americans than Bin Laden? He was the Governor of Wisconsin before that.) could End Welfare As We Know it by paying unemployable women to watch each other's kids. --------------------------------------- Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Post #323,145 by Another Scott 3/20/10 7:47:53 AM Reply	I think a lot of it comes down to attention. Some small bumps in achievement are relatively easy to get, some are difficult. I spent most of my high school time in an inner-city system in a 40 year old building that hadn't had much in the way of renovation in 20 years or more. Paint was peeling, the halls were dark, there was poor HVAC, the auditorium had the original light dimmers, etc. The books were far older than at the suburban district I had attended for about 6 months earlier. It was a "good school" in some respects, but even if I hadn't been able to make a comparison to a previous school, the lack of investment in facilities and teaching materials made an impression. It was clear that, for whatever reason, the city school system did not receive as much attention (in all its aspects). Kids pick up on that, even when very young. They know that adults spend time and money on things they value and think are important. So yes, when changes happen and the teachers and principals and staff are enthusiastic, then the kids pick up on it and things improve. I think some bumps in achievement at charter schools are due to this effect. When the school system or a new school administration spends money on paint and fixtures and new text books, kids pick up on it. When a system doesn't do these things, kids pick up on it too. Good schools don't suddenly fail, and failing schools don't suddenly become good. There are lags based on perceptions of the students and teachers. It's a process. Of course, money alone doesn't solve anything. But it's an important and necessary part of the equation. If we really want world-class K-12, we've got to pay attention to it. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!