What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Charter Schools (1 Viewer)

Ministry of Pain

Footballguy
John Oliver

You need to watch this because so much of it is true. I have been trying to tell you all but so much of this is close to what I encounter everyday. There are many charter schools but Charter Schools USA is one of if not the biggest in Florida, the owners/founders are in bed with sitting and active governor, Rick Scott who was the guest ####### speaker the year before I arrived at their yearly pep rally to kick off the school year. 

I'm pretty sure the reason so many schools go under or close is teachers quit. The turnover ratio would make your head spin. Last year I was the only math teacher to go wire to wire. Out of a staff of about 25-30 in middle school, maybe 5 lasted all year. They can't staff these places. 

I wasn't kidding when I posted I want my own school. Some of you could probably start one up.  

The schools have an aneurysm when teachers don't have the exact count in and they get money by how many heads are in the school daily which is why I had 48 students with a co-teacher when I first entered the classroom $$$ but I couldn't quite connect the dots the first day.  

If you have kids in charter schools, my guess is you like it and those schools have managed to stay open. 

CyberCharters...billion dollar industry and no overhead, amazing. 

 
I really think charters are largely a waste of time. Education isn't in and of itself supposed to be profitable. You are supposed to break even. The benefits to taxpayers come when those educated kids go out and become productive adults. It's a long term investment not a fixer upper to flip in 60 days.

 
John Oliver

You need to watch this because so much of it is true. I have been trying to tell you all but so much of this is close to what I encounter everyday. There are many charter schools but Charter Schools USA is one of if not the biggest in Florida, the owners/founders are in bed with sitting and active governor, Rick Scott who was the guest ####### speaker the year before I arrived at their yearly pep rally to kick off the school year. 

I'm pretty sure the reason so many schools go under or close is teachers quit. The turnover ratio would make your head spin. Last year I was the only math teacher to go wire to wire. Out of a staff of about 25-30 in middle school, maybe 5 lasted all year. They can't staff these places. 

I wasn't kidding when I posted I want my own school. Some of you could probably start one up.  

The schools have an aneurysm when teachers don't have the exact count in and they get money by how many heads are in the school daily which is why I had 48 students with a co-teacher when I first entered the classroom $$$ but I couldn't quite connect the dots the first day.  

If you have kids in charter schools, my guess is you like it and those schools have managed to stay open. 

CyberCharters...billion dollar industry and no overhead, amazing. 
Heartbreaking that the issue with possibly the most impact on our futures has the least number of good consensus answers.

 
Nick Gillespie responded over at Reason.
-It's true Charters do not force anyone to go there. That's twisting it though and here is why. CSUSA sets the schools up as close to bad sections or parts of town as they can get away with. Riviera Beach is a terrible place in WPB(it's not really that bad but people exaggerate) and they set up a school in the middle of two horrible schools that have "D/F" ratings and the parents pour in to try and put their kids into a better option than those hell holes.

-Charter Schools lack that heartbeat or soul that many other public and private schools obtain BECAUSE it is run like a business, everyone and everything is just a number, period. 

 
-It's true Charters do not force anyone to go there. That's twisting it though and here is why. CSUSA sets the schools up as close to bad sections or parts of town as they can get away with. Riviera Beach is a terrible place in WPB(it's not really that bad but people exaggerate) and they set up a school in the middle of two horrible schools that have "D/F" ratings and the parents pour in to try and put their kids into a better option than those hell holes.
and? if people are pouring in, the charter schools should be able to stick... if they're run well.

 
Doesn't the fact that a charter school employees MOP as a teacher not say all there is to say about the matter?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sorry, mop- I actually am interested in this and don't want the thread to devolve (too much).

NYC has Success Academies, which has been very... successful here. it's a franchise at this point, I think starting up in harlem. they opened one up relatively near us in the last couple of years, so we checked it out. 

the pros are that they've gained traction, so don't appear to be disappearing any time soon. they're well funded, and they also get kids testing well... which I guess leads to more funding. 

their method didn't jibe with what we wanted out of the education of our kids. test scores appear to be the end-all here, so the kids start prepping from day 1. Uniforms are enforced, and kids are publicly called out for not keeping up (or even answering not knowing the answers to questions)... it felt almost militaristic, and not a place to encourage creativity, or excitement about learning. teachers don't have to be accredited either...

but regardless of all of that... I still like/appreciate the concept of charter schools. if the DOE schools in your area aren't working, I'm all for somebody pushing an alternative out there... but it appears that greater oversight and preparation is needed so that schools don't flame out and that the best suit the needs of the neighborhoods they're serving. and the latter is something that seems- intuitively at least- to need flexibility and constant massaging to find the right balance.

 
I really think charters are largely a waste of time. Education isn't in and of itself supposed to be profitable. You are supposed to break even. The benefits to taxpayers come when those educated kids go out and become productive adults. It's a long term investment not a fixer upper to flip in 60 days.
Public schools here suck.  The charter schools here, for the most part, do not suck.  When it becomes a decision between paying through the nose for a private school or sending your kid to a charter school that's doing a considerably better job educating its kids, it's basically a non-decision.  They're not all wholly focused on the bottom line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let's use a little nuance and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, here.

For context, I had been somewhat against Charters.  Until I began to work in (multiple) majority-minority communities that were economically disinvested and politically disenfranchised. Terrible public schools (35% graduation rate, which is inflated already).  The public schools, through a historic confluence of corruption locally and at higher levels of governance and overall socio-economic deterioration are worthless, self serving, beds of graft and BS.  The ONLY option for kids are one of a couple Charter schools, both good or very good in terms of education.

This shouldn't be an issue of private vs. public, but rather what is in the best interests of students.  If Charter schools are properly regulated, supervised, graded etc., then they should absolutely have a right to compete with public systems that have clearly failed their constituencies.  Whereas, especially in underfunded or historically disenfranchised areas, gov't management of schools is a disaster, why not look for a solution?

That said, in the case (and there are many) that a private institution fails that mission, you need to have recourse, which means strong financial recourse (make it not worth being in the business) and the ability to pull the Charter if standards are not met.  Sadly, we can't pull the public schools when standards are not met - so do you have a better solution for where public schools are a clear and abject failure?

 
MOP, some charter schools in Miami are good - the Mater Academy schools, for example. I know several parents and kids who have great things to say about those located in the Hialeah, Miami Lakes and Miami Beach areas. I've had a few good Mater graduates in the math classes I teach at the local community college. In some locations, the charter schools have filled the middle school/high school gap; areas with good public elementary schools but poor public middle and high schools. It's allowed many parents in those area to stay put, instead of having to relocate to a better school district. OTOH, there is a brain brain from some public schools to good charter schools. When my daughters were in the public school system about 10 years ago, public magnet schools were the rage.

 
Let's use a little nuance and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, here.

For context, I had been somewhat against Charters.  Until I began to work in (multiple) majority-minority communities that were economically disinvested and politically disenfranchised. Terrible public schools (35% graduation rate, which is inflated already).  The public schools, through a historic confluence of corruption locally and at higher levels of governance and overall socio-economic deterioration are worthless, self serving, beds of graft and BS.  The ONLY option for kids are one of a couple Charter schools, both good or very good in terms of education.

This shouldn't be an issue of private vs. public, but rather what is in the best interests of students.  If Charter schools are properly regulated, supervised, graded etc., then they should absolutely have a right to compete with public systems that have clearly failed their constituencies.  Whereas, especially in underfunded or historically disenfranchised areas, gov't management of schools is a disaster, why not look for a solution?

That said, in the case (and there are many) that a private institution fails that mission, you need to have recourse, which means strong financial recourse (make it not worth being in the business) and the ability to pull the Charter if standards are not met.  Sadly, we can't pull the public schools when standards are not met - so do you have a better solution for where public schools are a clear and abject failure?


CREDO also moved beyond individual student performance to examine the overall performance of charter schools across multiple subject areas. They found that while some charter schools do better than the traditional public schools that fed them, the majority do the same or worse. Almost one-fifth of charters (17 percent) performed significantly better (at the 95 percent confidence level) than the traditional public school. However, an even larger group of charters (37 percent) performed significantly worse in terms of reading and math. The remainder (46 percent) did not do significantly better or worse.
And there are some members of the Charter School community who claim this report has inflated numbers favoring the charter schools.  Further when we get to high school we see very little advantage to charters.

There are obviously good charters. But in general kids are still kids and too many adults still don't put much work into their kids education. Still the biggest problem.

 
Charter schools are at least a chance to help students in failing areas.  They may fail also but it's better than doing nothing.

 
And there are some members of the Charter School community who claim this report has inflated numbers favoring the charter schools.  Further when we get to high school we see very little advantage to charters.

There are obviously good charters. But in general kids are still kids and too many adults still don't put much work into their kids education. Still the biggest problem.
If it works like it should then the poor performing charters should be shut down and more schools like the successful ones started up.

 
I do agree with the brain drain issue.  If the students with the most involved parents (it takes effort to get into a charter) then what the public school is left with are the kids with the least interested parents.

 
I made it 1:38 seconds in, to the point where he was making fun of somebody named Pit Bull (???).  Having watched a few of these, I've become convinced that John Oliver isn't worth it.

 
Charter schools are at least a chance to help students in failing areas. They may fail also but it's better than doing nothing.
I'm not sure I believe in the argument that it's better than nothing. If we phrased it as "Let's spend $3 billion in taxpayer funds so that a few kids will get a better education but the rest will either see no improvement or they'll see their schools close in the middle of the school year", then I don't think many people would say that it was better than doing nothing.

"Charter Schools" are one of those things that seem better in theory than in practice. Because right now it seems like it's just a haven for corruption and bad teachers.

 
I really think charters are largely a waste of time. Education isn't in and of itself supposed to be profitable. You are supposed to break even. The benefits to taxpayers come when those educated kids go out and become productive adults. It's a long term investment not a fixer upper to flip in 60 days.
Why? It doesn't appear to me that a profit motive is necessarily at odds with providing a good education. Indeed, it seems like those goals could easily be aligned.

 
Why? It doesn't appear to me that a profit motive is necessarily at odds with providing a good education. Indeed, it seems like those goals could easily be aligned.
I would love to hear this expanded on. I don't think most people look at for profit colleges the same as they do non-profit colleges. 

 
I have 2 issues I have with making schools compete for students like businesses compete for customers:

1. They have to spend money marketing. The school I work at has had to cut back on some resources to replace it with marking to convince the current families we are worth sticking with and convince new families to attend our school. As a teacher, I can name 100 ways that money could be better spent. 

2. "The customer is always right." Now that students and parents become customers, they can leave for another school any moment they want and have a dozen other options. The schools have no real power to enforce rules or put forth high standards of education. We get students from charter schools that have very low basic skills, but their report cards are all As and Bs. This last year we literally received a junior transfer limited English who had a hearing impairment, speech impairment and an IQ of 72 who came to us with all his credits and a 2.0+GPA. The kid couldn't pass the 4th grade, but his charter school passed him in every single class. We get kids like this and then they struggle at our school. Many of the parents blame us for being too difficult and they leave for another school. If a school wants to do well, they will have very soft rules, give into whatever demands the parents have and make sure everything is pretty easy so all the kids do well. Even if' it's not easy enough, just fake it. This is exactly what is happening in many schools. 

On the other hand, the school I work at is of a high quality and would not exist without the large amount of out of district students that have chosen to come to us. These kids are getting a better education than they would get in their home district. I'm not sure how much longer we can continue being academically rigorous, but we will try. This year we are having to move to allowing any kid the right to retake any test as many times as they want. We can debate whether that is a good idea or not, but it's happening and there aren't many staff members that support it. However, our district administration has said we have to do it to keep grades up and keep kids from leaving because one of the most often cited issues we have with why students choose other schools over ours is that those schools are easier and they get better grades. 

 
Why? It doesn't appear to me that a profit motive is necessarily at odds with providing a good education. Indeed, it seems like those goals could easily be aligned.
Because when we introduce the profit motive into public institutions we tend to create perverse incentives. We see it regularly. It tends to become about the money not the people.. 

 
Sorry, but it's true.  I don't think you guys on the left get how off-putting a fellow like John Oliver is to everyone else.  
Why does the right have no sense of humor? And Mr Oliver seems to be pretty popular. Further the point of the pit bull thing was to point out that some of these schools have become vanity projects for wealthy/famous people who really know **** all about education.

 
Because when we introduce the profit motive into public institutions we tend to create perverse incentives. We see it regularly. It tends to become about the money not the people.. 
I get that for prisons but I don't see it for schools. The way for schools to make more money is to have more students. But the way to get more students is to provide a superior education. So how does the incentive become perverse? 

 
I get that for prisons but I don't see it for schools. The way for schools to make more money is to have more students. But the way to get more students is to provide a superior education. So how does the incentive become perverse? 
Your argument breaks down here.

 
sorry, mop- I actually am interested in this and don't want the thread to devolve (too much).

NYC has Success Academies, which has been very... successful here. it's a franchise at this point, I think starting up in harlem. they opened one up relatively near us in the last couple of years, so we checked it out. 

the pros are that they've gained traction, so don't appear to be disappearing any time soon. they're well funded, and they also get kids testing well... which I guess leads to more funding. 

their method didn't jibe with what we wanted out of the education of our kids. test scores appear to be the end-all here, so the kids start prepping from day 1. Uniforms are enforced, and kids are publicly called out for not keeping up (or even answering not knowing the answers to questions)... it felt almost militaristic, and not a place to encourage creativity, or excitement about learning. teachers don't have to be accredited either...

but regardless of all of that... I still like/appreciate the concept of charter schools. if the DOE schools in your area aren't working, I'm all for somebody pushing an alternative out there... but it appears that greater oversight and preparation is needed so that schools don't flame out and that the best suit the needs of the neighborhoods they're serving. and the latter is something that seems- intuitively at least- to need flexibility and constant massaging to find the right balance.
Just to echo on Success vis a vis testing...at least some of their success is they weed out poor performers fairly quickly, so the kids that end of testing have already been self-selected whereas the publics in the same neighborhoods (most are poor neighborhoods) obviously don't get that ability.  

 
Just to echo on Success vis a vis testing...at least some of their success is they weed out poor performers fairly quickly, so the kids that end of testing have already been self-selected whereas the publics in the same neighborhoods (most are poor neighborhoods) obviously don't get that ability.  
yuck, if true. 

so it isn't about educating kids, it's about taking a select group and getting them to do well on the tests- at the expense of others who may not. 

I googled Success Academy just now- didn't really jump into the findings, but a couple of things jumped out: the NYTimes apparently has a bug up their butt about it, teachers seem to burn out there with long hours and little direction outside of the test prep.

the public school my kids go to here in NYC wouldn't jump out at you if you gauged it strictly by the test scores. but they intentionally don't care about the test or test prep (although they spend a week plus getting the kids prepped... almost too much, IMO). the feeling is that the curriculum is teaching the kids what they need to know, and that enrichment offerings- instead of test-prep- help round the kids out. we love our school, and are ecstatic with the education my oldest is getting (youngest starts K this fall) regardless of what kind of scores he gets on the state test.

 
yuck, if true. 

so it isn't about educating kids, it's about taking a select group and getting them to do well on the tests- at the expense of others who may not. 

I googled Success Academy just now- didn't really jump into the findings, but a couple of things jumped out: the NYTimes apparently has a bug up their butt about it, teachers seem to burn out there with long hours and little direction outside of the test prep.

the public school my kids go to here in NYC wouldn't jump out at you if you gauged it strictly by the test scores. but they intentionally don't care about the test or test prep (although they spend a week plus getting the kids prepped... almost too much, IMO). the feeling is that the curriculum is teaching the kids what they need to know, and that enrichment offerings- instead of test-prep- help round the kids out. we love our school, and are ecstatic with the education my oldest is getting (youngest starts K this fall) regardless of what kind of scores he gets on the state test.
Almost? Way too much. The whole testing situation is a nightmare. However people like to have a number to point to and say, look "Thing A" is 5 points better than "Thing B" even if there is no science behind the process. I don't even want to think about the amount of money America has spent on testing over the last 10 years and how much more we could have gotten out of hiring more teachers or updating school technology. The truth is many at the State level still want more tests. The goal seems to be monthly testing which means all school will be is test prep. 

 
But that reasoning doesn't make sense. PLENTY of private schools, for example, have very strict discipline. I went to a Catholic school in the Detroit area - if we ####ed up, the Brothers didn't give a #### if you didn't like it. And the parents were happy to see that discipline. 

I realize that is anecdotal evidence, but I think its like that at plenty of schools. 

 
Almost? Way too much. The whole testing situation is a nightmare. However people like to have a number to point to and say, look "Thing A" is 5 points better than "Thing B" even if there is no science behind the process. I don't even want to think about the amount of money America has spent on testing over the last 10 years and how much more we could have gotten out of hiring more teachers or updating school technology. The truth is many at the State level still want more tests. The goal seems to be monthly testing which means all school will be is test prep. 
agree 100%.

fwiw- the test prep isn't an all day thing... they take time away from one period (40 minutes, IIRC) and do it then.

given that here in NYC, middle school applications/admissions are partially dependent on these ####### things (the state tests), as much as I think they're a waste of time I don't want my kid walking in blind and potentially screwing up his middle school choice. as such, I feel like the school has found just about the right balance- my kid went into his 3rd grade tests last year feeling like he understood what was coming and what was expected of him... that's all I could ask for the prep.

and yes- NYC public middle schools are a cluster-####... like applying to college. our zoned middle school isn't terrible, but there are many, many others that are fantastic... it becomes about trying to get into those. :loco:  the HS process is even worse.

 
But that reasoning doesn't make sense. PLENTY of private schools, for example, have very strict discipline. I went to a Catholic school in the Detroit area - if we ####ed up, the Brothers didn't give a #### if you didn't like it. And the parents were happy to see that discipline. 

I realize that is anecdotal evidence, but I think its like that at plenty of schools. 
I still live and teach in the Detroit area and most of those Catholic schools are or will be closing. Ladywood is on it's last legs. I think their freshman class is less than 50 this year. That school used to be quite large. Also the Catholic Schools weren't schools for profit and had a built in following. People sent their kids to those schools for reasons beyond learning reading and writing. 

 
agree 100%.

fwiw- the test prep isn't an all day thing... they take time away from one period (40 minutes, IIRC) and do it then.

given that here in NYC, middle school applications/admissions are partially dependent on these ####### things (the state tests), as much as I think they're a waste of time I don't want my kid walking in blind and potentially screwing up his middle school choice. as such, I feel like the school has found just about the right balance- my kid went into his 3rd grade tests last year feeling like he understood what was coming and what was expected of him... that's all I could ask for the prep.

and yes- NYC public middle schools are a cluster-####... like applying to college. our zoned middle school isn't terrible, but there are many, many others that are fantastic... it becomes about trying to get into those. :loco:  the HS process is even worse.
Are the tests your kids do all multiple choice bubble tests or have they moved on to more advanced testing? 

 
But that reasoning doesn't make sense. PLENTY of private schools, for example, have very strict discipline. I went to a Catholic school in the Detroit area - if we ####ed up, the Brothers didn't give a #### if you didn't like it. And the parents were happy to see that discipline. 

I realize that is anecdotal evidence, but I think its like that at plenty of schools. 
I obviously don't know much about the subject- but here's my guess...

the criteria for generating income seems to be about putting kids' butts through the doors, not about any quality of education they might get. thinking that people will only go to a school that's truly successful in educating children is a nice idea- and I'd love to see that happen. but there are apparently a lot of other reasons, including going to anywhere else but the failing stardard school available. that schools will be spending money on advertising and marketing instead of on the kids... that's troublesome to me.

as far as I can tell, charter schools aren't necessarily more or less disciplined- they're just outside of the bounds of the local DOE in terms of pedagological/curriculum approach and staff/teacher hiring. I like the former, ambivalent about the latter, and overall like the idea of having alternatives. Id' still like to know more about the criteria for starting one of these, and for how it's success is gauged... I would think both things need a lot of time.

 
I obviously don't know much about the subject- but here's my guess...

the criteria for generating income seems to be about putting kids' butts through the doors, not about any quality of education they might get. thinking that people will only go to a school that's truly successful in educating children is a nice idea- and I'd love to see that happen. but there are apparently a lot of other reasons, including going to anywhere else but the failing stardard school available. that schools will be spending money on advertising and marketing instead of on the kids... that's troublesome to me.

as far as I can tell, charter schools aren't necessarily more or less disciplined- they're just outside of the bounds of the local DOE in terms of pedagological/curriculum approach and staff/teacher hiring. I like the former, ambivalent about the latter, and overall like the idea of having alternatives. Id' still like to know more about the criteria for starting one of these, and for how it's success is gauged... I would think both things need a lot of time.
But in that situation, its still better than the local failing school, right?

I mean, I'm not trying to waive the flag for charter schools. I just know there are a fair number of bad schools in the country and it'd be nice to fix that. And I don't think NCC's original point that profit and education are antithetical is necessarily true. It seems to me that the profit motive can be useful in creating better schools. And I haven't really been convinced otherwise yet by the arguments in this thread (though I am very open to being wrong - I'm not an expert on the subject). 

 
I still live and teach in the Detroit area and most of those Catholic schools are or will be closing. Ladywood is on it's last legs. I think their freshman class is less than 50 this year. That school used to be quite large. Also the Catholic Schools weren't schools for profit and had a built in following. People sent their kids to those schools for reasons beyond learning reading and writing. 
I didn't mean to use the Catholic schools as the be all end all example. It just seems to me there are plenty of private schools who dictate the education and discipline they provide. And they get students because they provide that quality education and discipline. 

I mean, Cranbrook and Country Day aren't getting $30k per year in tuition (or whatever it is) because they do whatever the customers want. They provide a fantastic product and that's why they can charge such a tuition. 

I don't really see how this wouldn't apply to charter schools also. The best way for those schools to make more money is to have a long list of kids who want to go there (or more specifically, parents who want to send their kids there). Providing a superior product seems the best way to do that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top