You live, you learn. And sometimes what you learn is not very heartening. I heard people mention charter schools here and there but I never had the time to research what the concept meant. Reader Kyle, however, shared the following definition of a charter school:
Charter schools are not privately-owned. Charter schools are essentially a hybrid between public schools and private schools. They allow the freedom in teaching and curriculum a private school provides, but are publicly-funded and owned.
I can only hope that Kyle made a mistake at this late hour of the night or confused charter schools with something else because the idea – the way it is formulated here – sounds appalling. Does this mean that I, as a taxpayer who pays quite a lot in federal and state taxes, am supposed to pay for something like this? Why should the public pay for anything – and I mean, absolutely anything – but state-provided education with a uniform set of curricula? Does this mean that any freak can start a “school” where any sort of idiocy is being peddled as learning (say, dinosaurs living by the side of humans or the US winning WWII and spreading endless joy all over the world) and I have to pay for this with my taxes as long as this freak show can get its dummies to pass some standardized multiple-choice idiocy of a test?
Reader Z kindly left the link to this article on charter schools but it didn’t explain much to me. For obvious reasons, I don’t care who gets accepted where. I care whether taxpayer money goes to fund schools that are privately owned and that choose their own curricula. To put it bluntly, is there a chance I pay for children being taught about people riding dinosaurs?
I prefer to hope that this is not happening.
Clarissa's Blog 
As I understand it, your analysis of charter schools is correct. See also the so called ‘free’ schools which Michael Gove, the Minister for Education, (who is a suppurating boil upon the face of politics) is busily destroying our education system with.
LikeLike
“I can only hope that Kyle made a mistake at this late hour of the night or confused charter schools with something else because the idea – the way it is formulated here – sounds appalling.”
Kyle accurately summarized how charter schools work.
“Does this mean that any freak can start a “school” where any sort of idiocy is being peddled as learning (say, dinosaurs living by the side of humans or the US winning WWII and spreading endless joy all over the world) and I have to pay for this with my taxes as long as this freak show can get its dummies to pass some standardized multiple-choice idiocy of a test?”
In some places this may be true, but in other places the market decides whether a charter school stays in business or not. If parents keep sending their kids to a school, it can stay in business even if the students can’t pass the standardized test.
LikeLike
“Why should the public pay for anything – and I mean, absolutely anything – but state-provided education with a uniform set of curricula? Does this mean that any freak can start a “school” where any sort of idiocy is being peddled as learning (say, dinosaurs living by the side of humans or the US winning WWII and spreading endless joy all over the world) and I have to pay for this with my taxes as long as this freak show can get its dummies to pass some standardized multiple-choice idiocy of a test?”
I don’t believe this is the case. A charter school is not a privately-owned school. It is publicly-owned and a part of the public education system. It does not take in tuition and has to accept anyone who applies. The difference is that it operates independently of the school district. Independent does not mean it is not accountable. To the contrary, charter schools have to meet all state and federal education standards and are reviewed every five years to make sure that they are meeting academic standards and being sound with their finances. They get audited and reviewed for their performance.
The idea is to allow more freedom for teaching in exchange for tougher accountability. If a charter school doesn’t perform, it can be shut down. Charter schools have to administer the same tests as zoned schools. A charter school is not say Pat Buchanan deciding to start a public school that will create “good Christian citizens” and getting public dollars for it and making up its own such tests. There are some churches involved in opening and operating charter schools, but the state governments watch them closely and they have to adhere to strict regulations (i.e. no teaching religion, no religious ornaments, etc…).
“Reader Z kindly left the link to this article on charter schools but it didn’t explain much to me. For obvious reasons, I don’t care who gets accepted where. I care whether taxpayer money goes to fund schools that are privately owned and that choose their own curricula. To put it bluntly, is there a chance I pay for children being taught about people riding dinosaurs?”
No charter schools legally are supposed to function like this that I know of. They are publicly-owned schools, and they have freedom in teaching, but their curricula must still meet government standards.
LikeLike
“To the contrary, charter schools have to meet all state and federal education standards and are reviewed every five years to make sure that they are meeting academic standards and being sound with their finances. They get audited and reviewed for their performance.”
– So we also get to pay for all this extra trouble?
“Charter schools have to administer the same tests as zoned schools.”
– Who cares? These tests are completely meaningless.
“There are some churches involved in opening and operating charter schools, but the state governments watch them closely and they have to adhere to strict regulations”
– So charter schools are unconstitutional to boot? Brilliant. How do you feel about paying with your money for “schools” whose existence violates the constitution and where children are not even taught anything?
LikeLike
Churches operate some private schools, but I cannot imagine them having anything to do with charter schools, at least in Delaware. If they do so in other states, then Clarissa is absolutely right.
LikeLike
I know they can sound innocent on the surface. But, of the various things there are to say: while taxpayers’ money goes to some startup that may or may not be allowed to stay open, that funding is pulled from a public school that has tradition and is still *required* to teach all students, which means having wheelchair access, etc., things that cost money. So many of our startups are being run by cronies of the superintendent of education who is a crony of the intelligent designist governor, it really isn’t funny. And, regular teachers may not all be brilliant but they do have professional training. Superintendent of education doesn’t even believe in certification.
LikeLike
I am also skeptical about certification. I have taught lots of undergrad mathematics students who would be outstanding high school math teachers, but who find the pro forma “education” courses required for certification to be mind-numbing, at best. Thus, they find another career which does not require them.
LikeLike
Everybody who teaches should, in my opinion, have training in methodology of teaching and pedagogy. It would be appalling of people went into teaching simply after getting a degree in Spanish, Physics, History, etc.
LikeLike
“So many of our startups are being run by cronies of the superintendent of education who is a crony of the intelligent designist governor, it really isn’t funny. And, regular teachers may not all be brilliant but they do have professional training. Superintendent of education doesn’t even believe in certification.”
I do not know where you are describing, but this is not the case where I live.
LikeLike
To the contrary, charter schools have to meet all state and federal education standards…
This is not entirely true, at least in some areas.
For example, teachers in charter schools do not necessarily have to be certified by their respective states. Similarly, most charter schools in my area provide a much more limited range of special education services — citing that if students have educational needs they cannot accommodate, those students should then rely on their local traditional public school. (The same is true for students here with language acquisition needs.)
LikeLike
The exact situation varies from state to state. We have some wonderful charter schools in Delaware and some not so much, but none are so bad that they do not satisfactorially educate the children enrolled. Some do indeed have admission requirements and do not take everyone who wants to attend, since thay have the facilities for fewer than want to be there. Some enforce strict dress codes for teachers and students; some do not.
If people do not experiment to see what works better, as charter schools do, then there is no chance of improving our public education. On balance I think they are a good thing. The danger is that they may drain the good students away from the mainline public schools. Then there are fewer good role models for the average student.
Of course, I see public schools as existing primarily for academic purposes. I know you have said that “socialization” is an important function they serve. I do not know how they affect this.
LikeLike
“The danger is that they may drain the good students away from the mainline public schools. Then there are fewer good role models for the average student.”
How odd. I went to public school most of my life except for 1st grade, and I never needed any “role models” among my fellow students. I learned because that’s what you were supposed to do in school, and I made good grades because my parents expected me to at least pass the class, and the idea of being held back was too humiliating, and also I was interested in learning maybe because I hadn’t been trained all my childhood to base my personality and goals on those of other people. This whole thing Americans have about “role models” has gotten out of hand. Whatever happened to the idea that we should worry about teenagers succumbing to peer pressure?
Another thing: the idea that “good students” are “role models” for other students is laughable. I don’t know how old you are but in the USA I grew up in the “good student” wasn’t considered anyone to imitate unless they also had a car or were on the football team or had some other thing that indicated your “brain” wasn’t keeping you from being popular and just like everyone else. This isn’t Europe, Americans don’t value intelligence unless it can be parlayed into financial and social success.
LikeLike
I was born in 1944, so I am pretty young, I admit. I was one of the “brains” who was clueless that there was anything else going on in school. I suspect that I was a role model for a few students who worked harder on academics than they would have had I not been there. My high school did not have a football team.
LikeLike
Unless someone tells you you were a role model, you don’t know. I have no idea why you “suspect” they worked harder because of you. It could just be for other reasons.
I’m not exactly sure what the rest of your quote means. Just because your school didn’t have a football team doesn’t really mean anything — I used it as an example because schools with football teams are common in the US and football is extremely important in mainstream high school culture (and indeed, in American culture). Things like being athletic and good-looking and well-liked and rich are more important than being smart in this country, and that has been the case for at least the past fifty years if not longer. I was born in 1963, by the way, so though I am younger than you I am no inexperienced child. I’m glad you went to an atypical school and had admirers who tried to be studious like you were but that is not a normal experience for most high school kids in America today. If it was there would not be ten million books, tv shows, and movies where the brainy kid was bullied and mistreated for not being rich, athletic, and popular.
LikeLike
The way this whole thing works is as follows: the most popular kids (and it works the same with adults, too) are the most secure and self-confident ones, the ones who are loved at home. Now, these kids can have absolutely any interests whatsoever. Since they are popular, everybody will want to imitate them and pick up their interests. So if the popular kid is studious, everybody in class will worship hard studying. If the kid is into dancing, everybody will dance. If the popular kid is athletic, everybody will worship sports, etc.
It is a huge mistake to think that popularity comes from money, athleticism, etc. It works the other way around. I’ve seen rich kids go out of their way to imitate a very very poor classmate, wear his kind of clothes, speak the way he does.
LikeLike
I was not popular, but some people have told me at class reunions that I was a role model for them and inspired them to work.
LikeLike
“To put it bluntly, is there a chance I pay for children being taught about people riding dinosaurs?”
The short answer is yes. It’s interesting how all these discussions on education are interconnected. On your post entitled “Solidarity” I mentioned the movie, “Won’t back down” being funded by conservative-leaning billionaire Philip Anschutz who also financed the movie “Waiting for Superman” that was so favored by the Obama administration. He also supports the Discovery Institute, a Seattle based think tank that promotes Intelligent Design and criticizes evolution.
The problem with vouchers, government cut checks for educational use that are distributed to parents, is they often don’t pay for the full cost of enrolment in charter schools and parents have to top up the amount with their own funds so children of poor families get basic education and more affluent families obtain an enhanced education for their children. This promotes inequality of outcomes for middle class children as opposed to poor children (read Black or Hispanic) who end up as raw material for the prison industrial complex.
LikeLike
“The problem with vouchers, government cut checks for educational use that are distributed to parents, is they often don’t pay for the full cost of enrolment in charter schools and parents have to top up the amount with their own funds so children of poor families get basic education and more affluent families obtain an enhanced education for their children. This promotes inequality of outcomes for middle class children as opposed to poor children”
– This is a completely normal situation in any society. Rich people can buy better food, housing, education, etc. There is, no has there ever been, a society anywhere on the planet where things were different.
LikeLike
But part of the point of having good public schools is that they do mean less advantaged people have a chance at a good enough education. Good enough to get into a good university, be competitive for scholarships, etc.
LikeLike
It’s vouchers to private schools that put public money directly into a private company or organization. Funding of charter schools is more complex and varied but they don’t have to meet the same standards as public schools. They do not have to serve special needs kids and they do not have to teach current material. There is one in Louisiana according to which the Loch Ness monster is real and a dinosaur, which then proves dinosaurs are contemporary and the earth is 6,000 years old.
LikeLike
“There is one in Louisiana according to which the Loch Ness monster is real and a dinosaur, which then proves dinosaurs are contemporary and the earth is 6,000 years old.”
– After this, what else is there to say on the subject? If this passes for education in this country, we will never become competitive with the rest of the world.
Now the question remains of who came up with this bizarre idea and who put it in practice.
LikeLike
Now the question remains of who came up with this bizarre idea and who put it in practice.
In my state, it is largely the people who are obtaining large amounts of state money to set up their own schools. Convenient, that.
LikeLike
Vouchers etc. are often used as justification to improve the education. Those sorts of people reason that competition in the free market would result in better education.
The above would be true, if quality of education was parents/guardians only goal. However, it’s often not their only goal. Instead it is often just a way to control their kids, oppress their daughters, and permanently restrict them to the wingnut alternate bubble.
LikeLike
I still have no idea what vouchers mean in this context. Who gives them to whom and why? In the context of my culture, vouchers have a very specific and a very charged meaning, so I keep getting confused.
“The above would be true, if quality of education was parents/guardians only goal. However, it’s often not their only goal. Instead it is often just a way to control their kids, oppress their daughters, and permanently restrict them to the wingnut alternate bubble.”
– EXACTLY!!!!
LikeLike
School vouchers are monetary certificates issued by the government that are intended to offset the cost of tuition. I’m not sure what exactly is necessary to get them, but probably the usual filling out of forms etc. signifying an intention to educate your kids in private school.
LikeLike
This sounds like the strangest system in the world.
LikeLike
With the current public school system, a person’s children have to attend the school in their particular area. With vouchers, the idea would be to make it where people can send their children to any school they please, and thus the schools would compete with one another.
The idea I think is well-intentioned, as the concept is that if competition works so well for other things in the economy, why not public education. I know there are lots of arguments against vouchers as well however.
LikeLike
“With vouchers, the idea would be to make it where people can send their children to any school they please, and thus the schools would compete with one another.”
– I still don’t understand why i should pay for this insanity.
LikeLike
I am curious, but why do you find the idea so bad? I’m not saying it isn’t flawed or will work, but I mean what is so bad about the basic concept (i.e. trying to add a free-market component to the school system to make it function better)?
LikeLike
“I am curious, but why do you find the idea so bad? I’m not saying it isn’t flawed or will work, but I mean what is so bad about the basic concept (i.e. trying to add a free-market component to the school system to make it function better)?”
– Because I don’t want my money to go to pay for Loch Ness monsters and dinosaur-riding people. It is absolutely appalling that my hard-earned money would be wasted egregiously on other people’s experiments.
“trying to add a free-market component ”
– Your own definition makes no sense. How is this even remotely free-market, if it’s done with governmental money? Taking money from taxpayers to give it to private business entities is the opposite of free market. Do you know what “free” stands for in the expression “free market”? Free from what? Right you are! Governmental intrusion, regulation and control. Look it up, you’ll see I’m right.
LikeLike
For the reasons I gave above:
“The [vouchers in a free market system, etc] would be true, if quality of education was parents/guardians’ only goal. However, it’s often not their only goal. Instead it is often just a way to control their kids, oppress their daughters, and permanently restrict them to the wingnut alternate [reality] bubble.”
LikeLike
“- Because I don’t want my money to go to pay for Loch Ness monsters and dinosaur-riding people. It is absolutely appalling that my hard-earned money would be wasted egregiously on other people’s experiments.”
On the Loch Ness monsters and dinosaur-riding people, I agree wholeheartedly. If public money is going to be used to fund the system, then the schools should have to still meet certain standards (like not teaching religion).
“- Your own definition makes no sense. How is this even remotely free-market, if it’s done with governmental money? Taking money from taxpayers to give it to private business entities is the opposite of free market. Do you know what “free” stands for in the expression “free market”? Free from what? Right you are! Governmental intrusion, regulation and control. Look it up, you’ll see I’m right.”
Well that’s why I said “free market component,” that component being competition. Provided they are only for public schools, vouchers would not be giving taxpayer money to any private businesses.
LikeLike
“Well that’s why I said “free market component,” that component being competition. ”
– Competition for governmental money is called a free market? Really? 🙂 🙂 I thought it was called Communism.
LikeLike
I guess you could say in this case that it’s communism with a free-market aspect 😀
LikeLike
Charter schools are public schools and cost nothing for the students enrolled. At least one charter school here in Delaware is consistently the place our very best students graduate from. It does a far better job than the private schools.
Apparently, however, Pennsylvania mainstream public schools do better than a lot of private schools, since PA teachers are respected, well paid, and treated as the professionals they are. I suspect unions get the credit for that.
LikeLike
Publicly funded but not (really) publicly run and that is the issue. Say what you want about certification — it’s entirely better than no training or education, really and truly. And I repeat: public schools are a public asset, like national parks. Do you want to sell those? You can totally go down that path, but I doubt you would really like the results.
LikeLike
“Do you want to sell those? You can totally go down that path, but I doubt you would really like the results.”
– It isn’t even the equivalent of selling. It’s equal to putting national parks into private hands to do whatever they want with them while still handing over public money for their maintenance. It’s a much worse deal than simply selling them! Ridiculous!
I’m still hoping that maybe there is something I’m missing here because I can’t believe what I’m hearing is true. I don;t think this exists in any other country in the world.
LikeLike
There is a contingent of people who think even the public parks are too much of a misuse of taxpayer money, and should be sold to the highest bidder to be made into “useful” land.
LikeLike
“Publicly funded but not (really) publicly run and that is the issue. Say what you want about certification — it’s entirely better than no training or education, really and truly.”
Provided that charter schools are held to higher standards and can be shut down if they don’t perform, this shouldn’t be a problem. If the quality of the teachers is truly lacking, then the school won’t perform. Certain states require that the teachers in their charter schools be certified the same as in public schools, or that the teachers for specific subjects that are important be certified (math, physics, AP courses, etc…).
LikeLike
“Provided that charter schools are held to higher standards”
– Held by whom? Who selected these standards? Are you aware that there is a strike going on in Chicago right now where teachers are striking precisely because there are absolutely no standards in secondary education in this country? Instead of standards, we have stupid multiple choice tests that mean nothing and that result in a complete idiotization of people.
“Certain states require that the teachers in their charter schools be certified the same as in public schools, or that the teachers for specific subjects that are important be certified (math, physics, AP courses, etc…).”
– This is getting more and more ridiculous with every moment. Subjects that are important? To whom, exactly?
I had no idea that such a ridiculous system existed, so thank you for opening my eyes, Kyle.
LikeLike
“- Held by whom? Who selected these standards? Are you aware that there is a strike going on in Chicago right now where teachers are striking precisely because there are absolutely no standards in secondary education in this country? Instead of standards, we have stupid multiple choice tests that mean nothing and that result in a complete idiotization of people.”
My understanding of it is the standards are set by the same bureaucracies that set the standards for the public schools (although if there are really no standards, that is a major problem!).
“- This is getting more and more ridiculous with every moment. Subjects that are important? To whom, exactly?
I had no idea that such a ridiculous system existed, so thank you for opening my eyes, Kyle.”
You’re welcome.
LikeLike
“My understanding of it is the standards are set by the same bureaucracies that set the standards for the public schools ”
– So the point of this entire system is to feed top sets of bureaucrats instead of one? Because at this point I;m not seeing any other purpose. This is just another way of frittering taxpayers’ money to make fanatics and idiots happy and to deprive kids of education.
LikeLike
It is the same bureaucrats for regular and charter schools in terms of setting standards the schools have to meet, but otherwise, a charter school should be less bureaucratic because it is not run by the local school district.
LikeLike
Whatever you do, don’t start using the PR buzzphrase “charter public school” unless you want to be a memetic agent of the “school reform” cause. These are the same people who use the word “public” as an expletive concerning everything other than education.
LikeLike
“To put it bluntly, is there a chance I pay for children being taught about people riding dinosaurs?”
YES. The taxpayer subsidizes this through state issued vouchers or state tax exemptions applied to private school tuition. There are few regulations concerning the admission and retention practices, the curriculum, or the quality of private schools receiving tuition from parents’ vouchers or from parents who have received tax exemptions.
Charter schools are schools which do not charge tuition and which receive operating money from the state or city, usually taken from the overall public schools operating funds (ie, funding is a zero sum situation). Charter schools are supposed to be overseen by the public school system or by competent proxies such as local universities’ schools of education (UMSL oversees some in St. Louis). Charter schools may be non-profit or for-profit entities. The problem with the funding of for-profit entities is that many of the education companies have sprung up without adequate expertise in education or in anything else, and these companies promise the sun, moon, and stars without having the capacity to deliver. Political pressure applied to public school system or to publicly-funded college supervisory boards often results in granting charters to incompetent companies. After a few years, the charter is revoked for poor performance. Many or most charter schools have the longevity of start-up restaurants (ie, minimal). The latest trend in for-profit charter schools is online learning, for which the costs of operation can be very low, provided few actual teachers are hired to interact with the students. State legislatures are being lobbied to allow online K-12 schools. Florida has pioneered in this arena, partly because one of the largest for-profit K-12 online charter school companies is owned by the third Bush son, brother to the current Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, and to the former POTUS George W. Bush.
Charter schools in theory are a way to test alternate teaching methods or rearranged curricula, to provide “special interest” schooling (schools emphasizing science and maths, emphasizing performing and graphic arts, bilingual schools, etc). Students in the majority of charter schools have performance similar to or slightly worse than their traditional public school counterparts. There are a few real success stories among charter schools. Some charter schools collapse in the middle of the school year or after one or two years, leaving behind creditors. Most charter schools muddle through not making much difference. As for charter schools teaching creationism, yes, this happens, mostly in districts where traditional public schools are trying to teach creationism.
LikeLike
“For obvious reasons, I don’t care who gets accepted where. I care whether taxpayer money goes to fund schools that are privately owned and that choose their own curricula. To put it bluntly, is there a chance I pay for children being taught about people riding dinosaurs?” – Clarissa
Just found a website which deals solely with taxpayer funded creationalism schools.
http://creationistvouchers.com/
“Check out our new creationist voucher database. We’ve documented creationist voucher schools from nine states and the District of Columbia. We’ve discovered more than 300 creationist voucher schools receiving tens of millions in public money.”
LikeLike
“We’ve discovered more than 300 creationist voucher schools receiving tens of millions in public money.”
– Now THIS is the real atrocity that needs to be fought passionately against. The idea that my hard-earned money goes to brainwash children into anti-scientific obscurantist stupidity makes my blood boil.
LikeLike
Concerning nonsense and wingnut brainwashing, the voucher program in Louisiana is particularly bad, but other areas don’t escape from the nonsense. In many cases, it is worse than and goes far beyond mere creationism.
Things that are taught in voucher schools (not necessarily in Louisiana):
*Set theory goes against Christianity.(cite)
*Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Roman Catholicism are pretty much evil.(ibid)
*The RCC is the cause of all of Europe’s problems and is not really Christian.(ibid)
*Advocacy of theocracy.(ibid)
*The Democratic Party is described as “socialist”.(ibid)
*Women are always to submit to their husbands.(ibid)
*”God used the ‘Trail of Tears’ to bring many Indians to Christ.”(cite)
*The Loch Ness Monster is real.(ibid)
*”South Africa’s apartheid policy encouraged whites, Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians to develop their own independent ways of life. Separate living area and schools made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children.”(ibid)
*Solar fusion is false.(ibid)
*Right-wing political bias.(above two sources)
*Dragons existed.(cite)
*The usual Young Earth Creationist nonsense.(above three sources)
LikeLike
This is very scary.
LikeLike