> Charter schools kicking out problematic students isn't some loophole, it's the main point, and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain.
If you kick out the problematic students, the only students you have left are easy to teach non-problematic students.
> and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain.
It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will be the best. It is a direct application of selection bias. Public schools will be left with whatever students are not accepted into charter schools...those "problematic students", and will...again...due to selection bias have worse results.
> It's not like they're only accepting kids with two parents, in fact they're doing a much better job of helping poor families in my district than the public school system
That's great for your district, but parent pointed out ending school at noon on Wednesday are going to apply selection bias. Perhaps your district does it better.
> If you kick out the problematic students, the only students you have left are easy to teach non-problematic students.
Maybe the negative effects of having problematic students is enough that its a worthwhile endeavor? By Middle school or high school "problematic students" involves people that not only are noisy and disruptive in class, but people that deal drugs, rob people, steal, join gangs, bring weapons to school. Just calling them problematic is really underselling the situation. And the effects of a student that routinely swears at a teacher and causes fights disrupts a large number of students preventing them from learning things.
Wow they sound really undesirable. I wonder if there's some place you could concentrate such people to reduce their impact? Maybe some sort of camp, idk.
In all seriousness once you start thinking of huge swathes of children as a problem in this way, the "solutions" become clear and atrocious. You have to find another path sorry.
When the actual fix (improving the lives, discipline, and care provided by their parents) is untenable, other lower effort solutions start to become more attractive. It's unreasonable to expect schools to correct for a poor upbringing.
I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing. Maybe the public school system is failing its students. However, it always seemed unfair to trap parents who would otherwise have other options in a failing system. Yes, this does suck for the children of uncaring parents - but for the parents who DO care, shouldn't they have a means of meeting their obligation to their children?
> I don't understand why offering parents more choices in how their children are taught could be a bad thing.
I am going to give my kid all the advantages I can, of course. But...personal optimization != societal optimization. Yes, I can put my kid in a better spot to succeed, but we aren't making progress as a society, things are getting very much worse actually (e.g. income inequality).
> Yes, this does suck for the children of uncaring parents - but for the parents who DO care, shouldn't they have a means of meeting their obligation to their children?
Again, those kids left behind...they are going to be expensive in terms of prisons, homeless services, lost productivity, etc...You can see this happening already, it is just going to be much worse when our kids are adults. And really, this is the only time we (or society) will have much influence on these kids. It is much easier to set a kid straight than try to fix an adult.
>I am going to give my kid all the advantages I can, of course. But...personal optimization != societal optimization. Yes, I can put my kid in a better spot to succeed, but we aren't making progress as a society, things are getting very much worse actually (e.g. income inequality).
Good intentions but empirically it doesn't work; forcing troublesome kids to be in school with the kids who genuinely want to learn drags down the score of the kids who want to learn and doesn't improve outcomes for the troublesome kids. Countries with school choice like Sweden have much better educational outcomes than the US.
I suspect there are at least a few major confounding variables when comparing Swedish to US schools. You know, like... almost everything about how the society works?
It seems that you suppose that keeping those kids in "normal" school is better for them than moving them to some schools tailored to their needs.
There is nothing obvious about that. Removing the worst disruptors from standard classes may be a win-win. People are diverse and cannot be all served by a one-size-fits-all school type.
> It is much easier to set a kid straight than try to fix an adult
Is this true? Adults have free will & personal responsibility, kids are sort of at the whim of their parents and have no real legal rights when it comes to escaping a bad situation
Adults have a life time to be set in their ways. Kids, at least before they are teenagers, are extremely impressionable. While we can't fix crappy home lives, we can give them a chance at school.
Framing the situation as kids being "left behind" feels disingenuous if not outright inflammatory.
Many European systems have been thriving for decades with different school options for different students, based on interest, aptitude, etc. We'd be far better off as a society if we had one classroom for the 8th graders who read at a 1st grade level and one classroom for the 8th graders ready for Infinite Jest. The curriculum and instruction could then be tailored to the needs of each group. Instead, we lump them all together and end up with an outcome where the majority of the students are underperforming their potential.
So basically the solution is to identify problematic kids very early, then take them away from their parents and put them in institutions to be raised by the state.
Because what you're expecting is for schools to take the place of parenting. If you're going to do that, you might as well just cut the parents and families out of the equation altogether.
I don't think anyone is going to say "offering parents more choices is bad." But the political reality is not simply "offering more choices." The political reality typically entails using funds set aside for public schools for charter schools. In reality, what happens all too often is that funding and resources are stripped away from the already resource poor schools and given to charter schools.
And that's probably why people seem as if they're saying "Charter schools bad." I'd argue they're really saying "Taking funds away from public schools to give to charter schools bad." We're creating a system where the already struggling schools will then be put on a downward spiral, unable to recover.
But I think our educations system is screwed up and we need to invest more resources into education at all levels, so what do I know.
There's also the moral question of your whole "it sucks for children of uncaring parents" quote, which I personally think is quite a selfish and uncaring perspective, that is also probably grossly not the truth for the variety of parents in lower performing schools, but I'm not going to get into that.
> In reality, what happens all too often is that funding and resources are stripped away from the already resource poor schools and given to charter schools.
Where are you seeing this? D.C. has almost half of its students in charter schools, and it also has public schools that are funded more than almost anywhere else in the U.S.
Worth pointing out that the charter school enrollment is highest in the poorest wards with the greatest percent of the black population. It’s lowest in the richest wards with the greatest percent of the whtie population. See for yourself[1].
Like with the claims of “underfunded public schools,” a lot of these conversations seem to stem from people hearing talking points and assuming that they’re true, while not bothering to look at the facts that show the opposite to be the case.
>Worth pointing out that the charter school enrollment is highest in the poorest wards with the greatest percent of the black population. It’s lowest in the richest wards with the greatest percent of the whtie population. See for yourself[1].
Now, what exactly do you think this is telling you?
Segregationists tried using that framing back in the 1960s/70s, but it the argument was ruled invalid by the Warren-led Supreme Court. Who knows what would happen these days, however.
Joel Greenblatt has schools that focus almost entirely on low income / underprivileged students. Their results were really good last I checked (pre-COVID, so things may have changed). It doesn’t have to be about one race vs another. Choice can be good for all.
Edit: I should note, I think he doesn’t focus on race, but I got the impression that his students are predominantly minorities.
> “I don’t want my kids to go to a school that will fail to educate them” makes you exactly the opposite.
And if you just happen know that the second overlaps with the former, you can convince yourself that you aren't an asshole. The segregationists of the 60s were self convinced they weren't assholes.
As to my earlier comment, I don't think anyone is saying "We shouldn't educate students" (except the parent comment that was like "only for kids whose parents care.") And for me, public schools are for the education of all the children in the district. In my head, I don't really separate the two. I believe in education for all, despite what resources their parents have. I'm going to reject the premise that I'm just for public schools just because. To me, it's one and the same.
If public schools aren't for the education of students, what are they for? To follow your question, if not public schools, do we just change all schools to charter and private schools and have the state fund them? (Well, then don't they just become public schools with slightly different administrations, that over time will surely become just another public school system?)
I should reiterate: I'm not saying that we shouldn't have school choice, but my very real concern is that school choice usually means that we take funding from one school, to send it to another school. And this is what happening* (* depending on the state/district you live in, maybe not. But it's happening in plenty of other locales.)
I think for a lot of middle class parents, Charter schools are very appealing. But I'm also talking about the students who need the most help. So the real question becomes "funds set aside for the education of _which_ students in the district."
Well, let's go back to the original post. Why do people go on and on about how school choice is bad? It's not about school choice. It's about school resources. It's politics. Who gets what, where, when and how. If the education system in America was so rich in cash that we were paving the hallways of schools with gold bricks, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. But they are not. It's a question of resources and how to direct those resources for the most good. And guess what, everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of what "good" is.
But back to your question: Why aren't we trying to educate children in the district?
Okay, if it helps students, and if your tax payer dollars are there to educate that student, what's the problem? The reality is, this typically leaves the schools that are already struggling to fall further behind.
Teaching is hard. Teaching students who don't want to be there, don't care, have special needs, or a poor family life is even more so. This is especially the case because Teachers are asked to do a lot more than just teach English and Math, but rather provide some of the resources that may not be provided by their family or society at large.
All schools and school systems have their own needs and issues. And largely what happens is that schools which have the least resources need the most resources to be successful. There's also a very real economy of scale that can occur at schools, and once resources start getting stripped, those economy of scales start falling apart, and now those dollars you do have, don't go as far.
Getting teachers to work at Title 1 schools is hard. You need to pay them higher salaries. You need more resources, such as school psychologists, school resource officers, teacher aids, etc. Even things like having parents come in to volunteer is more of an issue, and if you don't have those volunteers, where do you get the replacement labor from?
Not too many people are creating (good) Charter schools to serve these students needs (not to say there aren't, there are some good schools out there, but not enough of them.)
I work in education (but you couldn't pay me enough to teach high school in America). I see the issues with the system everyday. The system is broken. Teachers are underpaid, overworked and leaving in droves. If you look at the statistics for number of students in education departments in colleges to become teachers, it has drastically fallen over the past 15 years. (I literally tell students of mine that are interested in education to stay away.) That's not likely to change in the foreseeable future.
Students are not getting the education they deserve. There aren't enough teachers. There are bad teachers. All too often the bureaucracy is uncaring and unyielding, and that's not a great way to educate individuals. Students are getting passed through the system regardless if they're learning or not.
The issue I have with your question is this: Are we trying to educate _all_ children in the district or are we trying to educate _your_ children in the district? Because if it's just your children, charter schools would be great. If it's all children, we can't just rely on Charter schools to solve all the inherent problems with the system (because they're not just going to magically fix things). We're going to have to reach deep down, work harder, and make a lot of even tougher decisions to fix the broken education system in America.
I may not have made my distinction clearly enough.
My city’s school district total proposed budget is $245M for next year. Enrollment is just shy of 7K.
One framing is “that $245M is for running the schools”
Another framing is “that $35K is for the education of each student in Cambridge”
The first leads you to conclude “of course we wouldn’t let a parent take even a dime of that money to put their kid in private school”
The second leads you to “of course they should have the choice to use at least 50% of that $35K allocated to each student to attend a school of their choice”
Of course the public schools are there for the education of students, but the difference in framing is whether the money starts there or rather ends there for students who choose to attend it.
> I don't think anyone is going to say "offering parents more choices is bad."
Well, I will say that more-choice is not axiomatically good.
Imagine that on Monday the cafeteria has a choice of beef/chicken/vegetarian, and on Tuesday it adds a fourth option for methamphetamines.
There is strictly more choice, and the people who choose it might even express extreme levels of satisfaction... but somehow it doesn't seem like an improvement.
The philosophical issue is charter schools use public resources yet are not accountable to the public. Adding to that, having public education system that is available to the public is kind of the key part here. So, the practical issue is that if some students are being excluded, that misses the point of public education terribly (other practical issues involve profiteering by the charters, just like with private prisons). Additionally, having several overlapping choices with government funding is an inefficient use of the money.
As far as choice, there's nothing wrong with that, and religious and other private schools (which didn't get public funds) have co-existed with public schools almost everywhere well before our lifetimes. So equating charter schools (or vouchers) with choice in this context is disingenuous.
>The philosophical issue is charter schools use public resources yet are not accountable to the public.
They absolutely are accountable to the public in their school district, who can choose to send their kids not to that school if they don't like the school, depriving the school of revenue.
> >The philosophical issue is charter schools use public resources yet are not accountable to the public.
> They absolutely are accountable to the public in their school district, who can choose to send their kids not to that school if they don't like the school, depriving the school of revenue.
Having a choice between charter school and public school without enough resources to provide even basics to its students is not a choice. It's even worse because parents of children in public schools most likely also lack resources to help their children(be it material or cultural). So children in public schools end with a double whammy, neither parents(or parent) or school can help them.
Where are these mythical schools "without enough resources to provide even the basics" ? They don't exist, this is a canard that won't die. Public schools in the US are funded extravagantly. The worst performing schools have the biggest funding per student.
Some kids want to learn, some don't. Some parents value education, some don't. Not even a billion dollars per student will change that.
Simplistic arguments like this are one of the more annoying parts of the rhetoric of charter school advocates. It assumes that all charter schools are of high quality and that making education yet another thing that is economically stratified in the US is good. It’s ok to say that things that sound nice like choice in education can have knock on effects that are bad for society.
It seems like a charter school that develops a reputation for low quality is a self-solving problem in a way that a public school which develops the same reputation is (currently) not.
One goes out of business; the other goes along indefinitely, with perhaps the wealthiest parents nearby withdrawing their kids, but most families and children are forced to endure it or move away.
The feedback loop in education is several years long. Before a charter school develops a bad reputation, they just change their name, put up a banner declaring "Under New Management" and continue right along with better PR.
My district spends $29k per student. More than almost any other in the world. Yet some of its schools are so bad that a quarter of high schoolers opted out. It's not about funding. It's an overwhelmingly blue area, politicians are not purposefully sabotaging the schools. The government is just utterly incompetent, and worse, corrupt. And unfortunately many of the students are from households that don't emphasize the importance of education.
Your implication that conservative politicians are more likely to be sabotaging schools than democratic politicians is hilarious. I'm quite certain both sides are equally adept at throwing good money after bad so long as the present policy they pursue is fashionable and focus group tested. They're incompetent, as you say, or, perhaps, they just aren't willing to risk their own political future because the changes that might make a difference will be unpopular with voters.
My reading of "purposefully sabotaged" is that whoever was in charge of the schools decided to make them worse for political reasons, like not believing in public education. I'm not aware of any dems doing this. I certainly agree that they have accidentally sabotaged schools through incompetence or corruption, but that's a much harder problem to fix than "just don't vote for people that don't believe in public education".
My point was that elections here are almost always about improving public schools, but the government has not been able to over the course of decades. Call their stewardship what you will. Purposeful sabotage, accidental sabotage, whatever, doesn't really matter to me. What matter is that the government is not capable of enacting the voters will of having good public schools, which is why charters are so popular.
It's similar problem to drugs. We have populist solutions that don't work and solutions that work but will make you unelectable. Guess what solutions will get implemented? Also it doesn't matter how much money is spent per child if almost all of it is spent on turning school into day prisons for children. Students from poor families need more resources to be able to achieve same as children who have richer families. Family support goes a long way. This includes material support and cultural one. Parents often don't know how or have resources to help their children. Easiest solution would be for schools/government to help their parents so their children could rely on their family for support. Helping whole family is not only good for children but also to whole community. It was shown that hungry students have lower achievements than feed ones but we still pretend like only thing that matters is personal learning ethics, so we don't have to feed them.
Keep in mind that the North also had it's share of segregation and discrimination against poor(and by proxy Irish, Poles etc) and people of colour. It includes schools.
Also property tax as way of funding schools is awful.
Spends 29k on what? School infrastructure is crumbling around the country. Teachers are paid so little most of them could get a raise working at Costco. This country has engendered in every sector that matters a fleet of middle managers and administrators whose purpose is to extract value and provide little. Maybe we can start by trimming that away, something teachers have been saying for years.
And as for the overwhelmingly blue thing, that’s another simplistic narrative. Substantive politics in the US has very little to do with the party that you vote for, as the parties agree on 99% of the particulars, if not the rhetoric. Illinois is one of the bluest states in America and Chicago one of the bluest cities, and yet Rahm Emmanuel ran under a dem regime one of the most infamous regimes of city-wide austerity in recent memory. The Daleys were out and out corrupt racists. I could go on.
I don’t believe that public schooling, an actually lindy institution worldwide, an institution that was working quite well in the US up until about the 70s and 80s (wonder what happened then hmm) that has produced world renowned schools in the US in particular, is more of a house of cards than the Potemkin village that is charter and private schools.
> an institution that was working quite well in the US up until about the 70s and 80s
Was it really? With corporal punishment, public humiliation, and outright bullying? I would never want to live or return to a time when in loco parentis permitted schools to be run like fiefdoms.
You'll need to provide evidence that public schools were working well in the 70s and 80s. Graduation rates today are higher than those decades. High school was optional for many parts of the country.
The reason for the outcry now, is that we measure everything, and even the wealthier areas of the country are unable to perform to any reasonable standard.
Graduation rates don't actually reflect on the quality of education, I don't think, unless you're controlling for a lot of other variables. I don't typically see people controlling for them, e.g. a politician might brag that graduation rates are up in their district, arguing that education has improved, while ignoring the underlying reason that standardized tests got easier or the schools spent more time test-prepping and less time educating.
Note: not working well in the 70s and 80s, working will up until the 70s and 80s. But gladly, this is a great resource: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf.
At the exact point in our history that we should've accelerated spending in public resources we did an about face in the opposite direction towards privatization and the growth of the administrator class. All of our institutions (healthcare, finance, infrastructure, education, etc.) have been low-productivity money pits since then.
Graduation rates and attendance were even lower before the 70's, so I'm not sure what fantasy world you might be referring to. Are you referring to segregated schools? That probably wasn't an ideal system.
Oh. I assumed we were sharing information, not exchanging insults. I'm not sure what segregation has to do with anything, the data doesn't align, and many of the states focused on are in the north anyways. If you can't see the gigantic drop in test scores, lower velocity on all fronts save spending, and corresponding drop in productivity then that's ok.
But that's not the entire story. It's also the fact that not having to deal with the terrible kids helps the remaining kids. Fewer class disruptions. Less slowing down the class to pretend to let the slowest and least motivated keep up. Etc.
This comes at the cost of concentrating the troublemakers in other places, making them far worse for normal kids stuck there.
> It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will be the best.
You're implying that individual results don't change by grouping the good students together. In your vision the good students stay good and the bad stay bad. I don't agree. The good students become great by surrounding them with other good students.
If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students.
And the charter school gets to take credit for the "good" outcome while the public school gets blamed for the bad outcome that is a direct result of the good outcome.
Which, if we accept your premise, suggests that the charter schools aren't providing any net benefit, they're just taking credit. If this is really the way we want to operate things we could just do it in public schools.
> If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students.
The converse does not have to be true, only the contrapositive.
And in the case of a human’s tendencies, it is easier to become less disciplined than it is to become more disciplined. Bad habits are easier and likelier to pickup than good habits. Forming a tight knit high trust family/community is much more difficult than dissolving it. Etc.
I do think that the students who don't get accepted into the selective schools need better options. It's just when the options are keep all the students together or separate them and some will become better and some will become worse I think providing the students who want to succeed with a way to accomplish their goals is the correct choice. Hopefully there will be another option that isn't so exclusionary in the future.
I'm not super interested in who gets the credit here. If the public schools were able or willing to kick out problematic students like the charter schools then I think we should be doing that instead of charters. But that's not the reality. So yes, I do think that outcomes overall are better, at least in my district, because of charters.
You sidestepped my point. Segregating all the underperformers into one place causes harm and you're ignoring that harm, assuming that the benefit of segregating the high performers is more important.
And you are in fact crediting the charter school with the benefit while ensuring that public schools receive blame for any harm that results.
I think you're actually arguing against universal instruction, that we shouldn't educate all students. Which we could do in public schools also! But you're not suggesting that at all.
I don't think I'm ignoring the harm. I am accepting it. We can get into the utilitarian calculus, but before even considering that I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't. And really that's the end of the story for me. Maybe the total outcome is worse because the kicked out students cause much bigger problems than they would otherwise but that doesn't mean we should force the other students to suffer. I don't feel right dooming those kids to a poor education.
The public schools do deserve blame for putting all the under privileged kids together. The charters deserve credit for allowing them to separate themselves. I don't think that's intrinsic to public schooling, it's just the circumstance we are in.
> I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't
Now you're ascribing a specific cause and moralizing, assuming that it's harder for some subset of students because they want to fail, and that they deserve to fail. The utilitarian calculus does matter, you feel fine dooming some set of kids to a poor education because you think they deserve it.
No child deserves a poor education. We do have to choose who we prioritize and I don't really think your analysis of who "deserves" more help is sound.
Equating underperforming students with disciplinary problem students seems to be a common problem in this thread. There are many underperforming students who would perform much better without being subjected to a threatening or harassing environment.
Public schools attempt to provide universal education, which is at direct odds with bad-faith students that poison the well.
In fact, in some places where this is legal, public schools get better when they can expel criminal minors into the charter system.
Separating the worst offenders from the other students might also match these students with resources that are most equipped to help them (eg. counselors that might help to reduce gang violence).
Those “underperformers” aren’t being helped in either case. If we can dilute these problematic people into the general population maybe we won’t notice the pool smells distinctly like urine - aka the kiddie pool.
Education isn’t hard or expensive. Providing therapy for years of trauma and neglect is. Trying to focus on algebra when your home life is totally whack is hard. Otherwise what’s the cost of education.. chalk and plastic chairs?
Valuing public welfare is great, but so are the virtues that promote healthy families. Education is done by parents and there’s lots of adults with children who aren’t parents. Personal responsibility is a concept that will actually enrage otherwise intelligent people
You're conflating two kinds of bad students: the stupid ones and the poorly-behaved ones. Students with lower intellectual capacities should absolutely be helped; students who are disruptive, not so much. They may need to be sacrificed so the majority can have a decent learning environment.
The problem 10% bring down everyone else by monopolizing teacher attention. Let’s also not forget that many of these problem students are extremely violent with broken homes. Many of them eventually get transferred to prisons masquerading as schools, but that can take time, and long after they’ve done the damage to everyone else.
If you kick out the problematic students, the only students you have left are easy to teach non-problematic students.
> and it absolutely can improve the education for those that remain.
It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will be the best. It is a direct application of selection bias. Public schools will be left with whatever students are not accepted into charter schools...those "problematic students", and will...again...due to selection bias have worse results.
> It's not like they're only accepting kids with two parents, in fact they're doing a much better job of helping poor families in my district than the public school system
That's great for your district, but parent pointed out ending school at noon on Wednesday are going to apply selection bias. Perhaps your district does it better.