Federal study: Charter schools no more successful in improving achievement, attendance or behavior
As regular readers know, I have concerns about the General Assembly’s zeal for charter schools, which I consider a quick fix approach to education based largely on renaming schools rather than reforming them.
I like charter schools; I just don’t think they are the answer to under-performing schools. Nor are they a surrogate for the challenging work of improving teacher quality.
And here’s a new federal study — the first large-scale randomized trial of the effectiveness of charter schools in multiple states and types of communities — that underscores my concerns that lawmakers believe that turning schools into charters is all they need to do to improve education in Georgia. (Legislators claim that they have other reform ideas, but take a look at the significant legislation of the past four years.)
This study has been long awaited and will spark a lot of debate. Let’s start it here.
Many years ago, when charters were just appearing on the education horizon, I attended a program at UNC where a speaker predicted that the most likely benefit of charter schools would be higher parental satisfaction because parents chose the school and thus were more likely to see positive effects, even if the academics were not better. That led to a spirited discussion among the reporters over whether parental satisfaction, in the absence of measurable improvements in key areas, was enough to deem a reform successful.
Our view was that it was not. I still feel that way. There has to be more reason to support charters than parents feel good about them.
I recall one of the deans of Southern education reporting talking about how he found parents were often pleased with their school and their children’s teachers, even when the school was under performing.
I also want to note that the comment in this press statement — that while charters on average don’t outperform their traditional counterparts, there are wide variations among charter schools — is true of all schools.
From the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. DOE:
Charter middle schools popular enough to hold admission lotteries are, on average, no more successful than nearby traditional public schools in boosting student achievement, behavior, and school attendance according to a new evaluation released today by the Institute of Education Sciences. However, charter schools vary widely ‐‐ some are more effective and others less effective than nearby traditional public schools.
Those located in large urban areas and those serving disadvantaged students are the most successful. “This study adds to a growing body of evidence on this important policy issue,” said IES Director John Easton. “We examined academic progress, but we also dug deeper to try to understand more bout the variability of charter school outcomes and why some are more or less effective than traditional public schools.”
The Evaluation of the Impact of Charter Schools was conducted with 2,330 students who applied to 36 charter middle schools that held lotteries for admission. The study was directed by the National Center for Education Evaluation within IES and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research and its partners.
The study focuses on students who attended charter middle schools, usually grades 5 through 8, and who attended a school in operation two years or more. These schools had to be popular enough have a lottery because that allowed researchers to compare two similar groups of students, one offered admission to the charter they applied to and one not offered admission. On average, the participating charter middle schools served more advantaged students than other charter middle schools nationally.
The study charter schools had lower numbers of students eligible for free or reduced‐price lunch (44 percent to 62 percent nationally) and smaller percentages of students below proficiency on state assessments when they applied to the charter school (34 percent versus 49 percent in math). Additionally, fewer African‐American students attended the study charter schools than other charter schools nationally (16 percent versus 29 percent).
In each charter school, impacts were estimated by comparing average achievement outcomes among lottery winners with those of lottery losers over the 2 years following the lottery. Researchers compared performance on state math and reading tests, but because the tests varied by grade and from state to state, the scores were converted to a comparable scale.
Key findings from the evaluation include:
On average, study charter schools did not have a statistically significant impact on student achievement. However, the averages mask wide variation across the charter schools in how well their lottery winners performed relative to the lottery losers, who typically went back to their neighborhood schools.
Study charter schools did not significantly affect most other outcomes examined, except for parent and student satisfaction. These outcomes included absences, suspensions, and other measures of performance, as well as survey‐based measures of effort in school, student well‐being, behavior and attitudes, and parental involvement. However, lottery winners were 12 percentage points more likely and their parents were 33 percentage points more likely to say they were more satisfied with their schools than lottery losers.
Study charter schools were more effective for lower-income and lower achieving students and less effective for higher-income and higher-achieving students. On average, lottery winners with initial low test scores and lottery winners from low‐income families benefited academically from admission to charter schools (in math) while their more advantaged counterparts did not. However, there were no significant differences in charter school impacts for other student subgroups—such as those defined by race, ethnicity, and gender.
The variation in student achievement impacts among charter schools may be related to certain school characteristics. Charter schools in large urban areas, those serving more lower‐income or more lower‐achieving students produced positive impacts on student math scores relative to other nearby school options. Charter schools outside of large urban areas, those serving fewer low‐income students, and those serving higher‐achieving students had negative impacts on test scores. Less negative impacts were found in smaller charter schools and those more likely to use ability grouping.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
177 comments Add your comment
Larry
June 29th, 2010
3:34 pm
@EnoughAlready – thank you for setting the record straight on GSMST.
Perhaps some day I will possess your admirable civility when dealing with blowhards who post misinformation to deceive honest people. (Obviously, today isn’t that day.)
Most of GSMST’s student body is, as EnoughAlready noted, non-white.
The reason the state didn’t balk about the lack of bus service is because charter schools routinely don’t provide bus service. I didn’t bother going through 200+ web sites, but GSMST is the first charter school I’ve heard about that does provide transportation. It’s quite possible there are others, so feel free to post a list since it will be a short post.
About the best example for which this school can be used, is to demonstrate the caution necessary when comparing schools. GSMST is not a normal school and the students are anything but typical. Their self-described “rigorous curriculum” and focus on “extremely high levels of student achievement” are in no way understated. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of school aged kids simply couldn’t cut it at this school.
Over half of GSMST’s students qualify as gifted, if that’s a hint.
In a murky ocean of complaints about appealing to the lowest common denominator, GSMST is a lighthouse for intelligent, driven kids who too often exist unseen.
In case you haven’t figured this out, these kids are OUR future.
Chamblee Charter Parent
June 29th, 2010
3:36 pm
Single gender schools may be what some want but it’s not something I feel the entire public is obligated to fund. It only seems logical to me that if the rationale for creating charters is to give choice, then charters should be giving to choice to everyone, rather than half the population and not the other half.
Baker
June 29th, 2010
3:37 pm
“Those located in large urban areas and those serving disadvantaged students are the most successful.”
That’s all I need to hear. If a decent middle school is replaced by another decent middle school, who cares? Fixing the disaster that is inner city schools is the most important thing.
Stockbridge Mom
June 29th, 2010
3:38 pm
Great points by all. I don’t really see a problem in letting Ivy Prep accept boys. Oh and Gwinnett Mom, all I can say is YOU GO GIRL!!!
DunMoody
June 29th, 2010
3:40 pm
Okay, Chamblee Charter Parent – if a charter school is available only to high achiever students (such as Kittredge and Chamblee Magnet) doesn’t that rule out a significant portion of the population? Or if a magnet school only accepts students with musical/dramatic/dance talents such as DeKalb School of the Arts, doesn’t that mean untalented kids don’t get the same small-class, low teacher/student ratio? Just sayin . . .
Chamblee Charter Parent
June 29th, 2010
3:42 pm
Dunmoody, no matter what you do/effort you put forth, gender and race are not constructs that you can change (or change very easily to be technical). Talent/academic achievement are variables that people can work on (some might be better than others obviously) but these things are not as set in stone.
Time to dismiss Gwinnett Mom
June 29th, 2010
3:44 pm
Gwinnett mom now you’re just embarrassing yourself. A girls softball team would of course be open to girls. But once you open it to boys, and once you had to take the position that a girls softball team comprised of boys would be acceptable you pretty much relegated yourself to irrelevance.
You’ve been dismissed.
DunMoody
June 29th, 2010
3:44 pm
Sorry – that was a bit snippy. I have major problems with one-size-fits-all education, which is why I advocate for Charter Schools – whether your child is passionate about dance, math, politics, carpentry, computer programming . . . if a traditional school house can’t offer every program, why not make options available to every student? Maybe Charters aren’t the final answer (and I don’t believe they are), but it’ll take a century to turn this Titanic-albatross of public education around to fit the needs of the students wherever they are. I’ll work for the here and now – and Magnets and Charters are a good start. I’m frustrated that every student doesn’t have access to these programs . . .
DunMoody
June 29th, 2010
3:46 pm
I think I figured out the filter! If I use our moderator’s name (even positively), the filter clogs up. A ha!
The big picture
June 29th, 2010
3:47 pm
400,000 readers and no one sees the fundamental bias in this blog, even though it’s staring you in the face at the beginning of this blog topic?
Maybe people in Georgia deserve to have to pay for failing schools, and then pay again for social programs to prop up the by products of failing schools.
Gwinnett Mom
June 29th, 2010
3:51 pm
TTDGM, it’s clear we are not getting anywhere with your odd examples. To get back on topic, I think I’ve made my point perfectly clear. It would not be that difficult for Ivy Prep to offer choice to boys. That they do not is something I feel ought to be changed as apparently do many others on this blog.
Atlantan Forever
June 29th, 2010
3:55 pm
Gwinnett Mom, I had to jump in support of a fellow gal. I used to play baseball with the guys and never had any trouble. Never was allowed on the school team though but would have loved to have the opportunity. I think you’re right on with the fact that public schools really should have to accept everyone. How can you argue you’re giving people choice but at the same time telling my two young boys they have no right in your public school?
Let's be real here...
June 29th, 2010
3:58 pm
Uh Atlanta Forever… maybe because the aim isn’t to give everyone equal access??
EnoughAlready
June 29th, 2010
3:58 pm
Chamblee Charter Parent
June 29th, 2010
3:42 pm
If Ivy Prep should be open to boys, then Kittredge and Chamblee Magnet; should be open to people who don’t necessary fit their mold. They should be open to all regardless of talent or academics. It doesn’t matter if the qualifications can be obtained, just the fact that the tax payers are funding them. That was the initial argument.
Tonya
June 29th, 2010
4:01 pm
Maybe if GCPS didn’t routinely turn down charter applications regardless of validity there would BE a boys charter academy…..Just saying. I moved to Gwinnett from North Fulton and South Florida before that. before coming here, my son ONLY attended charter schools. The difference in welcoming parent involvement and how curriculum is used is miles apart. I’d kill for any type of option other than private school (which we just can’t swing right now) at this point.
Chamblee Charter Parent
June 29th, 2010
4:01 pm
EA, that actually would be fine with me. I like diversity. And my son isn’t in the magnet program btw.
EducationCEO
June 29th, 2010
4:09 pm
@Mo See we share the same ideas but I think too many people are misinformed when it comes to charters. Students living in the district can apply to a charter anywhere in the district. There are no attendance boundaries. That is not the same for traditional schools. In my opinion, the schools with the innovative programs in Gwinnett ARE NOT located in the South or Shiloh clusters. Our schools are seriously overcrowded and there are no plans for a new high school. The Gwinnett BOE DOES NOT care because this area is now a majority-minority community.
And we all know that Wilbanks IS NOT going to relinquish any control of students or money to anyone who does not subscribe to his leadership indoctrination, er… training program. After all, if he can’t blame students with disabilities/special needs, minority students, ELLs, or parents for low test scores, that means he would have to look at his leadership style and the kind of fear that is instilled in the teachers who work for him.
For those of you complaining about IVY only accepting girls, get off your duff and create an all-boys school next door so that families can have both sons and daughters served. Don’t blame IVY for the obvious lack of educational innovation and creativity under the Wilbanks regime. And no, I do not have a child at IVY so I am biased because I see and know what works. There is no reason for the BOE not to consider this model at other schools other than the fact that OLD people, especially here in the South, don’t like change. Period.
Larry
June 29th, 2010
4:29 pm
Catlady
Ivy Prep got $1,019,718 in QBE funding, which was calculated the same way all public schools are funded under Georgia law.
The Charter Schools Commission gave them an additional $1,273,966 under the currently contested law which allows this to be deducted from “home” school districts. The only exact numbers I have are for Gwinnett, where $849,994 was deducted from QBE earnings for kids who attend GCPS schools.
There is a formula in state law which determines how much local tax money goes to an independent charter school, which is functionally what a school system would spend on its own schools. The Georgia Charter Schools Commission is not required to, and did not use, this formula. According to this formula (what any other charter school would have received, or what GCPS would have spent had these kids enrolled in their home schools) the amount of local tax dollars to educate these 200 kids is about $550,000. So, the Charter Schools Commission cost Gwinnett taxpayers $300,000 which would have never been spent, regardless of where these kids chose to attend school.
As an aside, Ivy Prep’s contract stipulates that their students will outperform the average GCPS student on four CRCT areas. They failed to do this last year, and both sixth and seventh grades failed to do it this year. It’s not a big deal, but something I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere.
Hope this helps.
RobertNAtl
June 29th, 2010
4:34 pm
Geez, 400,000 readers, and not a single one can read The Big Picture’s mind.
*rolling eyes*
Missing the Point
June 29th, 2010
4:40 pm
I think some of you are missing the point. Why does it matter that your tax dollars are going towards a charter school in your district? I would be more concerned if the school (charter or not)was not performing to standards. We pay taxes for low performing schools all the time, but somehow not many complain about that. Good charter schools offer choices to residents. And in some cases, charter schools attract “active” parents and great students to the district (more tax money). My kids are enrolled in charter schools, simply because it works for them. As a taxpayer, I am thankful that I have that choice.
IVYPREPMOM
June 29th, 2010
5:00 pm
Ok, back from an extended lunch. I’ve read what has been going on and I think that most of you are missing the point.
A male student cannot and will not be admitted to Ivy Prep because if you read the charter bylaws and mission of the school it is to uplift the “women” or girls.. This program is not new to education, only to those of you here in GA which is behind the times with education anyway. The reason you are all up in arms is because you do not understand and you do not want change. I totally understand that but guess what, this world is changing and our girls need to be ready for it. (Not to say that the boys dont) This program is doing very well up in New York!!
@Catlady, I have an accounting degree so I know what disposable income is all I was trying to say is that uniforms are no more expensive than clothes at Wal-Mart or Target. And the school does offer a program where girls who have outgrown their uniforms sell them to others who may not be able to afford full price. Yes at Goodwill prices because Goodwill clothes aren’t “free” either.
What you all do no understand is that the school does work with every family that wants to have their daughter in Ivy Prep. For example, I couldnt afford the blazer for the first 3 months my daughter attended, and they just told me to get it as soon as possible.
I totally agree with MISSING THE POINT as long as it is a good school, what is the problem. And to be fair, these girls are kicking butt on the standardized tests and learning how to be great young women in the process.
And another blogger pointed out a good point, maybe GCPS would have an all boys charter school if the stupid, old, non-caring board would approve them!!!
IVYPREPMOM
June 29th, 2010
5:07 pm
Ok, back from lunch.
Typed in a lot of answers but apparently someone didnt like what I had to say because I hit submit and it didnt come through!!!
IVYPREPMOM
June 29th, 2010
5:15 pm
Plus, how did this come to be everyone against Ivy Prep. We are not the only charter school in the area!!!
Jennifer
June 29th, 2010
5:15 pm
Dunwoody Mom -
I don’t know if anyone addressed your question about ELL and Special Education students at Ivy Prep, but in my quick look see this morning on the DOE website it is much higher than at the GMST district run charter. This is why I love schools that operate with integrity:
Ivy Prep: Special Education (6.7%) ELL (9.4%) (independently run and 2x denied by GCBOE)
GMST: Special Education (1.8) ELL (0%) (district run)
I don’t think I need to say much more.
IVYPREPMOM
June 29th, 2010
5:28 pm
@Jennifer, I called Ivy Prep on my lunch and they told me that they accept all girls no matter what and the person who answered the phone didnt know the percentage so thank you for finding out for me.
Looks good to me!!!
Maureen Downey
June 29th, 2010
5:40 pm
DunMoody, The filter seems to halt a lot of messages that include proper names. Not sure how it can tell, but somehow it does.
Maureen
DunMoody
June 29th, 2010
5:45 pm
Good to know, oh maven of the edu-blogosphere. Thank you for this invaluable forum.
Dunwoody Mom
June 29th, 2010
5:58 pm
Here is what Diane Ravitch says about how charter schools “game” the system with regards to admissions. This would also apply to a couple of magnet schools in DCSS:
“Many ways of gaming the system are not outright illegal, yet they are usually not openly acknowledged. Most principals know that the key to getting higher test scores is to restrict the admission of low-performing students…As choice becomes more common in urban districts, principals of small schools and charter schools-both of which have limited enrollments-may exclude the students who are most difficult to educate. They may do it be requiring an interview with parents of applicants, knowing that the parents of the lowest-performing students are not as likely to show up as the parents of more successful students. They may do it be requiring students write an essay explaning why they want to attend the school. They may ask for recommendation from the students’ teachers. They may exclude students with poor attendance records, since poor attendance correlates with poor academic performance. They may limit the number of students they admit who are English-language learners or in need of special education. Whenever there is competition for admission, canny principals have learned how to spot the kids who will diminish their scores and how to exclude them without appearing to do so. A lottery for admission tends to eliminate unmotivated students from the pool of applicants because they are less likely to apply. A school can carefully weed out the lowest-performing students and still be able to boast that most of all of its students are African-American, Hispanic and low-income. Education researchers call this skimming or cream-skimming. It is a very effective way for a school to generate high test scores regardless of the quality of its programs. Schools of choice may improve their test scores by counseling disruptive students to transfer to another school or flunking low-performing students, who may then decide to leave. Not only do the choice schools look better if they exclude laggards, but the traditional public schools look worse, because they must by law accept those who were not admitted to or were booted out of the choice schools.”
Dunwoody Mom
June 29th, 2010
6:03 pm
Maureen, as my post too long for the filter?
HStchr
June 29th, 2010
6:28 pm
GtMom- we started as an afterschool, Saturday, before school SAT help class. It just didn’t get response. Kids wanted it, and we found that many were more than willing to use it as part of their elective credit. So they missed a PE class or an art class to take it. One thing we did was to make sure they didn’t compromise their academic needs or chances to get extra academic credits. I absolutely agree that test taking skills are NOT a necessity in life. But, please understand that the SAT is a much more detailed, critical thinking test. In order to teach kids to score better, you have to teach critical thinking and college level reading skills. You have to remember that college admissions right now, especially in state schools where kids can use HOPE have gotten much more competitive. It’s harder to get in Georgia Tech, UGA, et.al than it used to be. In the short term, kids need that SAT score. And trust me, if you had to take a test to get certification in your job (perhaps you have), you know how important study and preparation are to making sure you get t he score you need.
As to the charter school question, I think districts need to create specializations in schools, whether we call them “charter” or “magnet” or whatever. So long as they are accountable and properly governed, then they can help. That’s the problem with charter schools- they work outside the purview of governing bodies that oversee the remaining public schools in a system. That is just plain wrong!
I’ve seen several mention growth models as better ways to plan for and monitor success in schools. Look at the candidates for superintendent and you’ll only find ONE that promotes this. Growth models set reasonable, reachable goals for INDIVIDUAL students that increase success, student attitudes, and longitudinally greater academic achievement. Several states use growth models, and so far they seem to be increasing success. It makes the unblievable money we spend on testing make sense. Read about it- I think you’ll see that it makes sense.
EducationCEO
June 29th, 2010
6:31 pm
@IVYPREPMOM @Jennifer and @MissingThePpoint We could go round and round on this issue and they still wouldn’t get it. What’s funny is that NO ONE says a peep about the privately-ran (for-profit) EMO/CMOS that go into communities, open schools, charge up to 21% in management fees, underpay teachers, keep parents off the governing boards, and make millions in profits. Of course not. They’d rather pick on little ol’ IVY because it is doing exactly what it said it would do, with less money, no brand new $14 million dollar building – despite being denied twice by GCPS board. Hilarious..you have to get a kick out of that.
When are we going to start attacking parents who homeschool or send their kids to private schools? After all, since those kids are not ‘in’ a GCPS that means the district does not get per pupil revenues for them. See how much sense this lame argument against charter schools makes?
As @Tonya said, they are behind. I am still scratching my head and trying to figure out how they keep qualifying for the Broad Prize when Berkmar repeatedly fails to make AYP and meet the needs of its ELL population, SWD have a dismal testing and graduation rate, and the obvious disdain expressed by then district’s leader. I guess that’s how they do things down here. We’re not giving up that 47th spot in Education-they are willing to fight to stay there!
john konop
June 29th, 2010
6:33 pm
Lyncoln,
In all due respect, this study would not pass mustard in a research methods class. Charter schools vary all over the board on curriculum, purpose, education theory…..
You may some common factors in success and failure but no rational person would study it as ONE group when they are not the same. Do you understand how this would be irrational?
Charter school is a category like food.
john konop
June 29th, 2010
6:36 pm
DC Dawg,
Calling me an idiot does not change the fact that you are clueless in understanding the basics of research methods.
Charter Supporter
June 29th, 2010
6:42 pm
IvyPrep Mom, I don’t think anyone is intentionally singling out your school but how many other charter schools explicitly prohibit students based on gender/race/income/etc? If it doesn’t matter as long as a school is good, would you be willing to accept charters that discriminate on the basis of the race/income as long as they produced high test scores? I am an avid supporter of charters, but I can see why many see a potential problem in publicly funding a school for only one gender.
B. Killebrew
June 29th, 2010
6:42 pm
Great posts, Dunwoody Mom!
Educator for Life
June 29th, 2010
6:55 pm
@catlady, why even discuss kids coming to school with dirty clothes? If these same kids were required to wear uniforms, their uniforms will be dirty too when they arrived at school!
lynn
June 29th, 2010
6:55 pm
In GA, nothing like what Dunwoody Mom describes should be happening. In the Charter application process, charters must submit their applications and they have to be very basic. In any charter schools are behaving as described in Dunwoody Mom’s post, then the school should be turned in to the state DOE. In my experience, they take the integrity of the admissions process seriously. (404) 656-0619 is the number for the charter schools office.
Single gender schools are a school reform model. What does make Ivy Prep unique is that there isn’t a corresponding boys school. Perhaps someone should open one. I think there is a huge need. In fact, I would argue that the need for males is greater than females!
lynn
June 29th, 2010
6:56 pm
When I said applications, I meant applications for admission.
Educator for Life
June 29th, 2010
6:58 pm
@GtMom, I agree and disagree. I think there should be a separate SAT Prep class, but there is still enough time to incorporate review into the junior and senior classes. I taught AP Calculus for 7 years and I always finished the curriculum with 3+ weeks to spare. I used that time to prepare for the AP Exam. The College Board’s standards are not shorter by any means, so I feel other classes should have extra time also.
education research
June 29th, 2010
7:01 pm
I came to this post late, and I didn’t really read all of the comments. However, a first few posts talked about the quality of research. john konop says that we can’t treat ‘charter schools’ as a whole, but it all depends on what you consider as the “treatment.” When policies are made for “charter” as the treatment, there is nothing wrong with considering it as the treatment. You can make the same argument about “public schools,” too. They aren’t all the same – they use different curricula, different sets of teachers/students, different economical backings, etc., etc. Yet, people compare “public schools” versus “private schools,” etc. We do this in international studies, too. In every system, there are some good schools and not so good schools. Within any school building, there are some good teachers, and many mediocre teachers. Policies are made with much larger size grains, and policy makers in general don’t want, or appreciate, nuanced research – which many people criticize, too.
Then, there are plenty of people who dismisses research which gives the results that contradicts THEIR common sense.
RonP
June 29th, 2010
7:09 pm
This is only the first of many studies currently in play. I suggest folks read the report before making any kind of sweeping conclusions. On the IES website (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/) it specifically notes that
“Because the study could only include charter middle schools that held lotteries, the results do not necessarily apply to the full set of charter middle schools in the U.S.”
Lee
June 29th, 2010
7:58 pm
“…researchers to compare two similar groups of students, one offered admission to the charter they applied to and one not offered admission.”
Uh, newsflash. It is not the students of motivated parents who take an active role in their child’s education that is the problem. When we parents homeschool, send our kids to private school, or try to get them into a charter school, what we are really trying to do is to segregate ourselves from the bottom 25%, the troublemakers, the illegal aliens who cannot speak a lick of English, the special ed student who really should not be mainstreamed, and the system that perpetuates mediocracy.
Educator for Life
June 29th, 2010
8:19 pm
@ education research, thank you for that post. It seems we always want to find fault in things in which we don’t agreee. We compare apples and oranges everyday. There are good and bad in all aspects of society. Dekalb has good and bad high schools, in terms of academic performance. Within a subdivision, there are good and bad homeowners. So, it is ok to compare charter schools to other charter, private, and public schools.
The big picture
June 29th, 2010
9:06 pm
Back and forth, to and fro, and again and again, we miss the big picture. One sentence shows the fundamental flaw of this blog, and the fundamental flaw of how we deal with our failing schools:
“I like charter schools; I just don’t think they are the answer to under-performing schools. Nor are they a surrogate for the challenging work of improving teacher quality.”
Ah yes, if we could but ONLY fix the teacher…
Not that teacher quality isn’t important, because of course it is. But to say it, as has been said over and over again on this blog is no more that MAGICAL THINKING, that if we just “fix the teacher” we don’t have to have an HONEST discussion on how we don’t SUPPORT the teacher, especially when it comes to giving the teacher the authority to hold students accountable for behavior.
Still “rolling your eyes” RobertNAtl?
Well anybody else rolling their eyes is more than welcome to provide a rebuttal. But before you do consider: is there a school system in Georgia known for, in fact that has received NATIONAL accolades for “improving teacher quality” and embracing “researched based best practices” yet at the same time is also known for NOT being honest about supporting teachers in discipline and in fact it’s been DOCUMENTED that they have failed to do so?
I wonder, I wonder, do we dare say there is even a system in Georgia that is the “gold standard” for that kind of thinking?
Please reference it, and reference how very, very well it is doing these days when you explain how we can have an HONEST discussion of improving teaching WITHOUT having an honest discussion on how we do and don’t support teachers.
??????
June 29th, 2010
9:14 pm
Anything is better then basic Georgia standards!!!! Even if a Charter has to follow most of them they can implement other curriculum as well. Have fewer students per teachers etc. The counties don’t want these charters because it purely takes away FULL funding. 33% goes to public the rest to the charter. This is truly the issue as it has been with Cherokee Charter Academy and same on you all for trying to state otherwise. A few of us truly knows what is going on with this and you all are scared because you know that the majority you can snow over but a few of us knows what has taken place and maybe you all will be revealed!!! Cherokee County outta be ashamed of it self!!!! Only thing left know is for us to pull for vouchers and you are even more afraid of them!
john konop
June 29th, 2010
9:27 pm
education research,
You are correct I would not analyze all public schools the same. This is the biggest spin Kathy Cox did promoting her failed math 123.
In Cherokee, Cobb and North Fulton had a great gifted math program that was nationally ranked before her failed math 123 idea. Kathy Cox used statewide numbers in front of parents in the above district and said we were behind in gifted math. A rational intelligent person without an agenda would of taken what was working in the above districts and helped the other districts and not use false data for political pay-offs.
I am not advocating for or against charter schools. I am only advocating honest objective non agenda driven analysis. And if we did that instead of pay for play policy from lobbyist we would not be in this mess.
As I predicted Kathy Cox would become a high paid lobbyist post pushing her failed lobbyist driven agenda on tax payers’ dime. The sad part is the victims are kids.
Duh
June 29th, 2010
9:44 pm
Big picture- perhaps if you spent all this time learning how to effectively manage a class, instead of posting 100 times a day on this blog, you wouldn’t need so much support in your class. Good teachers don’t share your concerns.
In fact, your constant harping makes reasonable people much less likely to want to discuss this issue, regardless of whether it deserves airing or not. Your obsession is actually doing your cause a HUGE disservice, as it is very alienating to regular readers of the blog.
Chill.
HStchr
June 29th, 2010
9:59 pm
Duh- go get the MACE guy (Big Picture). I’ve taught over twenty years, most of those spent with “at-risk” kids who typically have worked their way through the discipline chain at least once, some several times. I love them, expect the best from them, and support them while I help them learn at their level and raise that level. My administrators know that I willingly, lovingly take the worst and move them forward, academically AND behaviorally. I know MANY, many teachers who do the same and discipline problems are few. I teach in a high poverty school, so I know about tough kids from bad homes who have all kinds of learning and behavioral issues. I don’t judge them by a middle-class white behavioral model, and I find that they behave for me and even come to me to avoid getting in trouble. If a teacher does that, administrative support isn’t a question, and discipline isn’t a problem.
What big picture wants is the keep dissatisfied teachers feeling like victims and keep the tension between teachers and administrators high so that they run to his organization and keep his paycheck coming. Don’t listen to him or try to debate him. It’s pointless, and has been for the past twenty years.
Jennifer
June 29th, 2010
10:19 pm
Education CEO – you are right on about Berkmar. This is information I discovered in doing research on the IE2 contract in Gwinnett. The BOE brags about Berkmar and its’ ELL population…and yet, in the years I reviewed them, the ELL subgroup somehow, magically did not even qualify for evaluation under AYP.
The smoke is very thick in Gwinnett. They are a decent district, but the spin is almost laughable.
The big picture
June 29th, 2010
11:06 pm
Big picture- perhaps if you spent all this time learning how to effectively manage a class, instead of posting 100 times a day on this blog, you wouldn’t need so much support in your class.
Yes Duh, dozens of children are running around unsupervised because I am posting on a blog in the last week of June. Of course.
“Good teachers don’t share your concerns.”
Really? You don’t think Janice Fair is a good teacher? Somebody thought she was good enough to train other teachers, and despite that, she ended up in the newspaper, a victim of a violent assault.
“Good teachers don’t share your concerns.”
Good teachers aren’t concerned when a system falsified discipline data and under reports over 40,000 incidents? Good teachers aren’t concerned when state Tribunal law is violated, and hearing aren’t held as required by law? Doesn’t sound like the “good teachers” you know are interested in integrity in gathering and reporting data.
“Good teachers don’t share your concerns.”
# Nearly half of teachers surveyed (49%) reported they have been accused of unfairly disciplining a student.
# More than half of teachers (55%) said that districts backing down from assertive parents causes discipline problems in the nation’s schools.
Still want to say that “good teachers don’t share these concerns”? Or would you rather say that every teacher surveyed who agreed with the above statements were bad teachers?
“…as it is very alienating to regular readers of the blog.”
Ever consider that with what is going on in education today, and the generally tepid response to it, that maybe some people need to be shaken up. But yes Duh, I admit I’m much more interested in what’s best for Georgia students than what’s comfortable for regular readers of this blog.