Ten Things Charter Schools Won’t Tell You

May 26, 2013 //

This is a marvelous summary of the hidden secrets of charter success.

And the best part is that it appears in a financial journal, not in the newsletter of the Network for Public Education or on this blog.

Categories Charter Schools

44 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

Jere Hochman says:

May 26, 2013 at 7:43 am

Charter Schools would be just downright wonderful with ELLs, students with disabilities, Regents Exam performance, teacher turnover, facilities, college readiness, college entrance.. IF… HOWEVER… BUT… ALTHOUGH… YET…

The following excerpts are from the Executive Summary of “THE STATE OF THE NYC CHARTER SCHOOL SECTOR 2012” report released by the New York City Charter School Center

Click to access state-of-the-sector-exec-summary.pdf

Excerpts from the Executive Summary
At present, the charter sector serves a smaller percentage of students in special education than the citywide average,although this difference may partly stem from students being over-identified in district schools. Charter school students in special education are more likely to move toward less restrictive settings.

The charter sector also serves a smaller proportion of English Language Learners (ELLs), but ELLs in charter schools are more likely to pass the English proficiency tests required to leave that category.

For instance, charter schools are now required to enroll and retain certain groups of at-risk students at rates comparable to the local district schools, or risk closure, a shift that is likely to narrow differences in charter and district school demographics. Charter schools are also acting collectively to share best practices for students with special needs and make it easier for families to find and apply to charter schools (including through a common online application). And with the signing of a District- Charter Collaboration Compact, charter schools are joining their district colleagues to find new ways to work together and share best practices.

While the overall results are strong, charter school students’performance in Math is stronger than in ELA (which is also true for district students). At the few charter high schools that have existed long enough to graduate students, rates of college readiness and college enrollment lag those of district high schools. However, trends in Regents completion suggest that high school outcomes will improve as a larger and more representative number of these schools start to graduate students.

A majority of charter schools operate in district buildings, which, given the lack of facility funding, has been a critical factor in charter school growth. Yet it must be remembered that even schools in district buildings have no assurance of continued access.

The report finds that charter schools, on average, have higher rates of teacher and principal turnover compared to NYC district schools. Such rates of turnover are, in part, consistent with a dynamic, growing and still quite new sector, and one which operates with different background labor rules and more varied compensation structures. And while low rates of attrition are not an outcome valuable for its own sake, lower staff attrition could help charter schools sustain or expand their positive influence on academic achievement, while continuing to grow. Charter school leaders are paying close attention to this issue, and seeking ways to improve educator pipelines and keep effective educators on the job longer.

LikeLike

Reply
Duane Swacker says:

May 26, 2013 at 7:49 am

The article repeated the misnomer of tenure instead of properly identifying it as “due process rights”. And considering the comments, many would consider that tenure to be a problem. Bunch of charterite commentators.

LikeLike

Reply
Linda says:

May 26, 2013 at 8:02 am

Someone from Minnesota will be here soon.

LikeLike

Reply
Joe Nathan says:

May 26, 2013 at 8:27 am

These are the kinds of media generalizations that would be criticized by many here if applied to district public schools. Apparently it’s ok to generalize about charters, but not about district public schools?

For example, “our teachers aren’t certified.” As the article notes, 79% of charter public school teachers ARE certified ( a smaller percentage than district public school teachers, but still nearly 4/5 are certified).

“We’re no better than public schools.” Of course, charters are public. Moreover, some district public schools show more progress, some charters show more progress. Some district public schools serving similar students have higher grad rates, some charters serving similar students have higher grad rates. Some district schools compare well to charters serving similar students when it comes to helping students earn college credits, some charters do better.

Other examples could be given.

Just as there is no “typical” district public school, there is no “typical” charter.

But this journalist seems fine making generalizations. Too bad for readers trying to understand.

LikeLike

Reply
- Jere Hochman says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 8:40 am
  
  Well, as they say, “It ain’t a strike until I call it” –
  
  But the excerpts above are not from some journalist – they are from
  “THE STATE OF THE NYC CHARTER SCHOOL SECTOR 2012″ report released by the New York City Charter School Center
  
  Click to access state-of-the-sector-exec-summary.pdf
  
  Sorry – it is not only generalized, it is fact and law that the public schools include every child, require certificated teachers, comply with building codes – and with much room to improve – do extremely well
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 8:44 am
    
    Jere, it is NOT a fact that every district public school is open to all kids. What about the elite quasi private magnet schools that use admissions tests to determine which kids get in? What about the “public” schools in exclusive suburbs that hire detectives to make sure a youngster from a nearby, poorer community can’t attend?
    
    LikeLike
- Ron Poirier says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 8:41 am
  
  Many state “family” court systems define “joint custody” as meaning “joint LEGAL custody” (a term that means almost nothing to the parent who doesn’t have majority physical placement, who is almost always the father). That way they can say with a straight face, “A presumption of joint custody is already the norm in this state!” when they know damn well that isn’t what the vast majority think of when they hear the words, “joint custody”. Forcing the opposition to use cumbersome phraseology like “a rebuttable presumption of joint physical placement” is part of their strategy to keep their (very flawed) status quo intact.
  Forcing charter-cautious forces to use cumbersome phraseology like “non-charter public schools” is essentially the same tactic.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- Linda says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 8:56 am
  
  Privatizers and edufrauds makes generalizations about the real public schools all the time, but you only get your back up when they are made about charters and I knew you would.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- Michael Fiorillo says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 10:31 am
  
  Joe, you and other charter supporters can keep repeating the falsehood that charters are public schools, but that doesn’t make it so.
  
  We all know the line about repeating lie until everyone believes it, but your tone of, “Gee, why can’t we all just get along?” (while you and your cohorts destroy and loot a public resource) transacts at a very high discount on this site.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 10:43 am
    
    Actually, Michael, I work with and support a variety of public schools, district and charter. I’m a supporter of terrific public schools, whether district or charter. Here’s a recent article from a local St. Paul paper about a collaborative project we are working on involving district & charter public schools. It’s helping many more students from low income, limited English speaking families earn college credits while still in high school.
    
    http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_23076316/homeroom-collaborative-effort-gives-high-school-students-better
    
    As to the term charter public schools, it’s not about what I say, that’s what 41 state legislatures, the District of Columbia with charter laws say.. It’s what the US government and a variety of court decisions say. I know a variety of people on this board disagree – but that is what the laws say.
    
    So Michael, I’ve read about what you don’t like – what are you doing to help more young people succeed (not a criticism, a question)?
    
    LikeLike
Alan says:

May 26, 2013 at 9:02 am

Somewhere out there amid the edu-rubble, there must be at least one charter school that is doing things right, is functioning as charters were intended back when they were originally conceived, and has not been weaponized by “hedgeucators.”

I sincerely would like to know about it to hold it up as an example of how far things have become distorted.

LikeLike

Reply
- Joe Nathan says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 10:48 am
  
  Alan, there are thousands of fine charters, as there are thousands of fine district schools.
  There are deep debates within the charter movement as there are within district public schools about how to proceed.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- Linda says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 12:45 pm
  
  Alan,
  
  I know of one in Winsted, CT called Explorations. They take a very needy high school population and I have heard good things. They don’t cream…just the opposite as was intended originally.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Robert Rendo says:

May 26, 2013 at 9:32 am

And number 11, left off the list:

11. “We charter school operators are out to completely gut public education and transform it into a profit seeking and plundering institution that will separate the weak from the strong, the slower minded from the smart-but-obedient, and the worker class from the ownership class. State and Federal governments are aiding and abetting us like never before as we fund their elections!”

See:

http://thetruthoneducationreform.blogspot.com/2012/12/blog-post_1346.html?view=snapshot

LikeLike

Reply
Chiara says:

May 26, 2013 at 9:57 am

My problem with designating charters “public” has to do with democratic process.
The boards are appointed (in Ohio anyway) and there is no broader community representation or participation outside of parents of students currently in the schools.
That simply isn’t truly “public” to me, and I don’t care how many times charter supporters insist it is the same.
Public schools belong to communities. We have a traditional district here, we’re trying to pass a 19 million dollar levy, and probably 50% of the participants at meetings don’t have children (currently) in our schools. They are certainly “stakeholders” though.
It’s messy, it can be infuriating, but public schools are NOT “owned” by parents, they’re owned by THE PUBLIC.
It’s why I’ll never accept a parent trigger. That’s not a PUBLIC school governance model, because it excludes the larger community.

LikeLike

Reply
- Joe Nathan says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 11:09 am
  
  Chiara, I agree with you about parent trigger. Don’t support it.
  
  As to your designation of “public” – some states have “public schools” that are statewide schools not controlled by a locally elected board. These are not charter public schools. A few examples:
  
  Illinois School of Math and Science (passing an exam required to be admitted,
  https://www.imsa.edu/
  
  Perpich Center for the Arts (uses auditions to determine who gets in – most applicants don’t get in)
  http://www.mcae.k12.mn.us/
  
  Louisiana School of Math, Science and the Arts
  http://www.lsmsa.edu/
  (Uses test scores to determine who is admitted)
  
  These are all publicly funded – public schools.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- teachingeconomist says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 11:10 am
  
  By the “public” do you mean the citizens of the neighborhood, school district lines as now drawn, county, state, or nation?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
- FLERP! says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 12:37 pm
  
  NYC schools are controlled by a panel filled with mayoral appointees who vote as they’re told. Therefore, by your reasoning, NYC has no public schools, whether charter or district.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - Ellen Lubic says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 7:26 pm
    
    And according to our outgoing LA Mayor, this is exactly what the goal is…to have all mayors appoint panels, no longer elected school boards. Theory being Mayors are smarter and more well versed in Government. Bah! Humbug! Of his own admittance, Villaraigosa could never have gotten into UCLA on his record without affirmative actions. And he never could pass the Bar Exam despite multiple tries. How smart is that?
    
    LikeLike
  - FLERP! says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 8:00 pm
    
    Tony Vilar?
    
    LikeLike
Chiara says:

May 26, 2013 at 10:16 am

I’m baffled why people in these communities are just meekly accepting “parent trigger”

It’s patently ridiculous to insist that the only people with an interest in a “public school” are CURRENT parents of students in the school.

The whole community owns those schools. You mean to tell me the parent who has a 4 year old who hasn’t yet entered that school gets no vote on whether to remove staff or privatize it? That’s ludicrous. It’s how PRIVATE schools operate, not public schools.

I think we’d have a riot here if a bare majority of current parents decided they alone were running our public school system. It’s nuts. It makes no sense. That school reformers are promoting such a patently undemocratic and shortsighted model of public governance should really alarm people. It does me.

LikeLike

Reply
Mike says:

May 26, 2013 at 10:57 am

Sadly, there is a certain segment of the parent population — a segment that no doubt overlaps heavily with the readership of Smart Money — who will hear that charter schools enroll fewer children with special needs and ELLs and consider that a selling point in their favor.

LikeLike

Reply
- dianerav says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 11:30 am
  
  Mike, you are so right. I have met hedge fund managers who make no bones about the fact that they want charters that don’t accept special education or any problem children.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - teachingeconomist says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 11:43 am
    
    Would their children be better of in a school with high achieving peers than in a school with more mixed peers? I think Dr. Ravitch has argued this in the past.
    
    This is a very important question. Is the choice of a school system 0 sum?
    
    LikeLike
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 11:44 am
    
    And there is a certain segment of parents who want their children in places like Boston Latin (Boston), Whitney Young (CHicago), Illinois School of Math and Science, Walnut Hills Cincy) and on an on, that are very pleased by the idea that only students who have very high standardized tests can get their child into those schools.
    
    Then there are parents who move to exclusive suburbs because they don’t want their children going to school with low income students.
    
    On the other hand, there are folks committed to fine public schools for students from low income families, familie of color, youngsters with some form of disability and youngsters for whom English is a second language.
    
    LikeLike
  - Tim says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 11:53 am
    
    I don’t hear many parents living in zones like 321, Madison (CT or NJ), Wilmette, etc. clamoring for their fair share of at-risk kids, either. In fact, the absence of at-risk kids is baked into the sky- high real estate costs.
    
    LikeLike
  - FLERP! says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    
    Right. Dalton school parents are also not very outraged about the dearth of at-risk students in their school. Democracy, civil rights, etc., but NIMBY.
    
    LikeLike
  - Linda says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 12:43 pm
    
    There are many schools in middle and upper class areas with lots of problems: drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse, suicide, divorce, depression, etc. It isn’t as prevalent but they are not issue free.
    
    LikeLike
  - Louisiana Purchase says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    
    As a matter of fact, sometimes these wealthier areas have MORE problems with drugs and teen pregnancy. I taught at a school once with a lot of those problems. But, because they were in a wealthier area, parents KNEW that THOSE THINGS didn’t happen at THEIR school, and therefore ignored the signals that something was wrong. Denial is powerful in some of these communities.
    
    LikeLike
M. Schneider says:

May 26, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Charters bespeak privatization. Privatization bespeaks “bottom line” (maximizing profits). As a privatization system, charters depend upon having community public schools available as a “lower level” to “catch” students who “don’t succeed” in charter schools (i.e., who don’t toe the line with maximizing those coveted high test scores and grad rates).

Once a charter begins to too closely resemble a community public school (i.e., retaining at-risk kids, kids with behavior problems, kids who score low on tests), then the charter is itself “at risk” for closure.

In this modern climate of glorifying privatization, “successful” charters must play the game. They must rid themselves (either overtly or covertly) of students who aren’t a “good fit” for generating test scores and profits while promoting the oft-manipulated public image of “success” (i.e., 100% of our grads enroll in college).

LikeLike

Reply
- Ellen Lubic says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 5:46 pm
  
  Thanks for this clarity Mercedes….and when a charter can choose the better students from a lottery, those whose parents use the lottery concept to start with will be the better students, then they not only can show more academic success, but they do this with the public school funding which follows the student. Thus the ADA at the public school is continually lowered so that the greatest at-risk students have the least resources for education.
  
  What a system to set up a permanent underclass which will probably feed into the juvenile justice system rapidly to fill the for-profit prisons.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    
    All over the country, charters have been set up by groups of teachers and parents, to serve the students most “at risk” – and in some cases students who have had major frustrations in district public schools.
    
    It’s also true that there are alternative district schools set up by groups of teachers (and sometimes community groups) to work with kids for whom the traditional structure does not work.
    
    LikeLike
  - M. Schneider says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    
    Not in Louisiana, Joe.
    
    In fact, we got us some charter accountability issues that our pro-privatizing, so-called superintendent is actively ignoring:
    
    Louisiana Charter School Audit Reveals Faux-Accountability
    
    LikeLike
- KrazyTA says:
  
  May 26, 2013 at 10:17 pm
  
  M. Schneider: may I ask you to employ your powers for good and wrap your Lasso of Truth [handed down from Wonder Woman] around a seemingly startling proclamation made in this thread?
  
  In replying to Alan above, Joe Nathan writes in the first of two sentences “Alan, there are thousands of fine charters, as there are thousands of fine district schools.” [I provide every word of the first sentence in the interests of accuracy and fairness]
  
  IMHO, tone and implication count for a lot. When you put “thousands” on the public school side and “thousands” on the charter side—remember, these are the “fine” ones—there is an oblique assertion made that there is an equivalency. In this case, there’s just as many Centers of EduExcellency on one side as on the other.
  
  Correct me if I am wrong, but charter school students and schools are still a very small percentage of the total US student population and number of schools, yes? So if the numerator for both public schools and charters is “thousands” but the denominator for public schools is many many times larger than the one for charters, then charters have crossed the finish line of cagebusting EduExcellence before public schools are off the mark.
  
  If my hesitation regarding the above assertion is in error, I stand corrected. If I am correct, however, I make it ONLY to remind all of us to be thoughtful and polite [that doesn’t exclude humor and sharply expressed POV] in our postings on this website. I hazard the guess that one of the unspoken ‘Rules of the Road’ on this website is ‘fight fair.’
  
  Respectfully awaiting your reply.
  
  🙂
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - dianerav says:
    
    May 26, 2013 at 11:31 pm
    
    KrazyTA,
    
    There are some 5,700 charter schools enrolling 1.94 million students, according to the choice-friendly Center for Education Reform. That means about 2% of school-age students attend charters. About 90% of the nation’s children attend public school. The rest are in private schools.
    
    LikeLike
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 27, 2013 at 12:04 am
    
    On the issue of whether charters are public, Here’s the first paragraph of what the National Center for Educational Statistics says:
    
    http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30
    
    “Question:
    What are charter schools? How common are they, and who do they serve?
    
    Response:
    A public charter school is a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a legislative contract or charter with the state or jurisdiction. The charter exempts the school from selected state or local rules and regulations. In return for funding and autonomy, the charter school must meet the accountability standards articulated in its charter. A school’s charter is reviewed periodically (typically every 3 to 5 years) and can be revoked if guidelines on curriculum and management are not followed or if the standards are not met (U.S. Department of Education 2000). In 2009–10, charter schools operated in 40 states and the District of Columbia. In the following states, a charter school law has not been passed: Alabama, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.”
    
    This document also has links showing that most students attending public schools are attending district public schools. As of 2009-10, NCES estimated that there were 49,136,240 public school students. Of those NCES said that 1,611,322 were attending charter public schools
    http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_101.asp
    
    Those are the latest figures from NCES I was able to find.
    
    The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools – a group that advocates for these schools, estimates that as of January, 2013, 2,326,542 students attended 6,004 charter public schools.
    http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/news/napcs-estimates-531-new-charter-schools-opened-2012-13
    
    LikeLike
  - dianerav says:
    
    May 27, 2013 at 12:48 am
    
    Charter schools have asked in federal courts to be designated as private agencies and the federal courts agreed.
    
    Charter operators have asked the NLRB to recognize that they are private organizations with a public contract, and the NLRB agreed.
    
    What NCES writes in its documents is overridden by federal court and NLRB rulings.
    
    You can call yourself a Labrador retriever, but that doesn’t make you one.
    
    LikeLike
  - Joe Nathan says:
    
    May 27, 2013 at 1:09 am
    
    We’ve been through this before. In two different places, the NLRB refers to charters as public schools. It’s valuable to read the entire decision. In literally the first sentence of the opinion, the NLRB refers to the school as public:
    ”
    
    “The issue in this case is whether a private, nonprofit corporation that established and operates a public charter school in Chicago, Illinois, is exempt from our jurisdiction because assertedly it is a political subdivision of the State of Illinois within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the National Labor Relations Act.” (p. 1) ”
    
    “In this regard, then, charter school operators arguably are akin to government contractors in that they are operating ‘public schools’ for the State of Illinois.” (p. 7)
    
    The NLRB decision affirms that charters are PUBLIC schools, and that they are subject to national NLRB regulations. Unions are allowed to organize. The group that created the school must allow teachers to vote in a secret election to determine whether they want to join the union.
    
    LikeLike
  - Ron Poirier says:
    
    May 27, 2013 at 10:46 am
    
    It is very simple, then. Charters are officially public when that is what corporate reformers want them to be, and they are officially private when that is what corporate reformers want them to be. You see? Simplicity itself!
    
    LikeLike
CCSSIMath says:

May 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm

And here’s an interesting report on the profits being made in the charter school business:

http://www.alternet.org/education/who-profiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and

This is part 2 of a two part series

Part 1 “details many of the ways in which charter schools fail poor children, children of color and students with disabilities even as charter school supporters appropriate civil rights rhetoric.”

LikeLike

Reply
KrazyTA says:

May 27, 2013 at 2:41 am

dianerav: thank you for having the courtesy to directly address my request.

To the readers of this posting: please forgive its excessive length.

So with “thousands” of “fine” schools on both sides, let me for the sake of argument lowball that figure [i.e., plural of “thousand”] to its minimum: two thousand. And without putting a fine point on it—and in the absence of someone else providing data to the contrary that would lead to other calculations—there are approximately 5,700 charter schools.

First Data Point: 2,000/5,700 = 35% [approx.] of charter schools are “fine.”

Ok. Now I am going to severely lowball the number of public schools since I don’t have other data at hand. According to the percentages provided by Diane, there are approximately 45 times the number of public school students as compared to charter school students, i.e., 90/2 = 45. But I will assume [and this indirectly favors the pro-charter/privatizer side] that there are not 45 times the number of public schools compared to charter schools. Let’s just say that there are 10 public schools for every one charter school [I pick 10 partly because it will make the calculation easier for all the non-math majors like myself to follow this line of reasoning]. That would be 10 x 5,700 = 57,000. That is our denominator. The numerator is the same as it is for the charter schools: 2,000 [remember: in the interests of fairness and intelligibility I am making the “thousands” directly comparable so we’re not talking about apples and oranges].

Second Data Point: 2,000/57,000 = 3.5% [approx.] of public schools are “fine.”

Now if I were just wading into the murky waters of the current ed debates, 35% looks a lot better—to be honest, crushingly better—than 3.5%. I don’t think this is ‘fighting fair.’ These figures, at least subliminally, strongly favor charter schools and strongly disfavor public schools.

At this point someone might complain that I am not playing fair with the figures [which are suspect in any case]. Ok, let’s say that the charter schools still only get 2,000 out of 5,700 for 35%; in other words, we disadvantage them numerically by assuming the lowest possible “thousands.” At the same time we numerically advantage the public school number by multiplying the original numerator of 2,000 by 5. We now have 10,000/57,000 = 17.5% [approx.]. Now “thousands” no longer equal “thousands” and we are making claims about public schools that are utterly incompatible with the marketing hype and claims of the leading charterites/privatizers. Yet in spite of heavily weighting our calculations in favor of “fine” public schools we still only reach half (17.5%) of the percentage reached by “fine” charters (35%)!

Think how you can spin this to the general public. Charter schools are twice as “fine” as public schools! There are twice as many “fine” charter schools are there as “fine” public schools! After all, as the renowned scholar Dr. Steven Perry has asserted with this stirring quote from rapper Jay-Z, “Men lie and women lie but numbers don’t.” And for those reading this who feel I am exaggerating how pliable numbers and statistics can be when put to the service of investors and politicians and ideologues, please read Darrell Huff and Gerald Bracey and Daniel Koretz [among many others]…

In the absence of better numbers, analysis and logic, I rest my case.

Let’s exercise a little more caution when throwing numbers around.

Again, please excuse the length of this posting.

LikeLike

Reply
Joe Nathan says:

May 27, 2013 at 6:59 am

All over the country, colleges and universities are learning that they can simultaneously compete and cooperate. In some places, universities offer cooperative programs for students. Some colleges have established cooperative purchasing programs. Sometimes they share faculty. They find value for students and for their institutions in working together.

Over the last five years, from Hawaii to Minnesota to Massachusetts, I’ve encountered and worked with some district and charter educators who find ways to work with and learn from each other. Doesn’t mean they always agree. Doesn’t mean they will cooperate with everyone. But they see value in some forms of collaboration, with some other educators.

My statement was intended to compliment educators from throughout the country. Sorry some interpreted it as an attempt to suggest that there are a higher percentage of excellent charters, compared to district public schools.

Happy Memorial Day.

LikeLike

Reply
- Linda says:
  
  May 27, 2013 at 7:06 am
  
  “I’ve encountered..I’ve worked with”…..we know, we know. Your statement was to boost the reps of charters. It always is and your involvement is always mentioned as well.
  
  When you give equal numbers to both and the number of charters to pubic is far from equal, it appears there are more worthy charters than publics, so it didn’t come off as so gracious. There is a theme to your posts and you are consistent.
  
  We get it Joe.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Robert Rendo says:

May 27, 2013 at 6:59 am

Dear Krazy TA,

Why not just do a proportional comparision?

The first question that needs to be calculated is “What percentage of charter schools are not performing well out of all charter schools? That’s X out of Y number of charter schools.”

The second question would be “What percentage of public schools are not performing well out of all public schools? That’s A out of B number of public schools.”

After each percentage is calculated, they can be compared on some rational basis (rotten oranges out of entire basket of oranges and rotten apples out of entire basket of apples.)

Of course, one needs to defines what “not performing” means and how that term is determined (APPR with test scores vs APPR without test scores, etc.). One needs to also analyze and disaggregate according to student population, socio-economic status, level of funding, classroom size and space, etc.

BUt you are right in saying that numbers never lie, while the way they are presented can definitely be editorialized to any extent, from the mildest to the most extreme.

See:

http://thetruthoneducationreform.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-statistician.html?view=snapshot

LikeLike

Reply