The economic cost of charter schools

[superpunch]

its fairly mixed.

but you can spend money poorly. you can waste it. you can spend it on things that do not truly impact student achievement.

but we certainly know a lack of adequate funding impacts student learning. a 2nd grade teacher, not matter how talented or dedicated, cannot teach 35 kids how to read. no matter how responsible those 2nd graders, they will not teach themselves to read while the teacher is preventing a fight on the other side of the room.

Korea and Japan both average 30+ students per class in k-12 education. Korea and Japan both spend less money PPP adjusted and nominal per student than we do. Korean and Japanese students know how to read. They also perform better academically than American students do. Explain?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Yes but the per student figure is often misleading because of the range of costs that it covers. That money, unfortunately, isn't exclusively spent on instruction.

That number covers salaries, supplies, benefits, purchased services, etc. So in a state with high teacher benefits and expensive things like school psychologists you're going to have a higher "per student" figure but not necessarily more money spent on teacher training or up to date textbooks.

Per student spending has become one of those numbers which can be very misleading on its surface as it relates to actual education of kids.

True, but Mass. is going to be on par with NY for those same things and they have much better results while spending 6k less per student.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I'm sure the reason that public schools are losing funds to charter schools, is because the public schools were just so good....... (sarcasm to be noted).


Parents often send their children to private schools, and charter schools because the quality of the local public schools education is substandard. If those within the public school system don't want to lose funding to things like charter schools, they have to offer a competitive quality of education.

It's not the charter schools fault that public schools are so bad that parents are desperate to get their children out of them.

To be fair, the charter schools are basically picking their students. Pull 1000 random kids out of any public school and then take 400 whose parents are engaged and want their kids to get a good education. Those 600 that didn't make the cut are going back to the public school and can't just be sent off.

 

[superpunch]

nm

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Korea and Japan both average 30+ students per class in k-12 education. Korea and Japan both spend less money PPP adjusted and nominal per student than we do. Korean and Japanese students know how to read. They perform better academically than American students do. Explain?

Korean and Japanese parents instill a different attitude towards school into their kids than half of Americans do.

And if I'm not mistaken, don't they segregate the students (the smarter ones from the rest) around middle school?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

But I thought performance differences are because of school funding?

Only when the left is talking about outcomes.

 

[superpunch]

nm

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Finland has outlawed charter schools and has ranked considerably higher than murka for years in education rankings.

Yep, but it isn't because they banned charter schools. Charter schools are not the cause of the failure of American public education. They are a response to the failure of American public education.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Charters are just a way for people to steal tax money under the disguise of helping the children

 

[SBJJ]

It's really disingenuous at best to act like Charter schools are to blame for a failure in Education. But it's easy for politicians to do so

Think about how different America is than most other countries. Comparing us to Switzerland or Japan is crazy

We are a unique nation with unique problems. And Banning Charter schools or throwing more money at education will not help

 

[trident]

The really, really shocking thing to me is that private school teachers make less money than public school teachers

I still can’t undeestand how having lower paid teachers (therefore wouldn’t the better ones not want that and wish to make more?) = those schools are better as evidenced in higher standardized test scores and fewer school discipline incidents

I don't know this to be true but I wonder 1) what other perks are available at private schools and 2) what the average economic status of private school teachers is

One perk teaching at a private school is your kids can go there too for nada

All I can say for certainty is the system is radically fucked up and there is no honest attempt to make it better from those who actually could.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I enrolleed my daughter in a charter school this year. no cost to me. The public school no longer gets 'her' daily money, the charter school will.

This might be shocking to some.. not all kids in 7-12th want to be there.

At least with the charter school, the kid that isn't behaving correctly gets kicked out and goes back to public school.

Much harder to do at a public school

 

[Judge]

Most people can agree that education is an important public service. And most people can agree that the current system isn't serving the needs of our less fortunate students. THe concept of school choice and the expansion of charter schools to meet that need has become a standard point of discussion.

Yet a criticism brought against this particular direction is that charter schools are financially detrimental to the school districts where they're operating.and the students who are in those districts but not in the charter schools.

https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/report-the-cost-of-charter-schools-for-public-school-districts/
https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_Breaking_Point_May2018FINAL.pdf

Here's a study out of California that shows that for those districts, the expansion of charter schools is literally taking money away from the other kids. It's not a simple one to one transfer of dollars, the students left behind are actually receiving less per student dollars.

School choice is an important concept but we have to make sure that it's not coming at the expense of other kids. As always it's one more reason to look closely at how we choose to fund schools. Perhaps the funding for charter schools should not come out of the same funding that we allocate for the public schools. Public school students should not be penalized so that charter school students can go elsewhere. And school choice should not be inhibited for those who wish to take advantage of it.

It's not a simple problem and deserves our attention.

Charter schools are cheaper per pupil and kids take their money with them where they should. Minorities benefit disproportionately more than whites do. Most charter schools are done by lottery and have a higher retention rate than public schools.

If the charter schools perform sub par the usually lose their school or at least we have market choice to end the bad ones.


THE COSTS you are not figuring in is the failure of all those public schools students who would be better off in schools more concerned about the students rather than the teacher unions.

I know you copied an pasted a lot of garbage and I could spend my time copying and pasting counter points that are true but I got a life. Sorry.

^ SHORT VIDEO WITH FACTS

So you can fight the fight to give kids especially minorities a chance to do better and you can pat yourself on the back if you want.


On a personal note it warms my heart seeing kids of all races improving their life and capabilities in these SUPERIOR system of schools.

Deal with it.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Korea and Japan both average 30+ students per class in k-12 education. Korea and Japan both spend less money PPP adjusted and nominal per student than we do. Korean and Japanese students know how to read. They also perform better academically than American students do. Explain?

idk. id have to look at these claims and a lot more specifics about their ed system.

 

[superpunch]

idk. id have to look at these claims and a lot more specifics about their ed system.

What is it about their ed system? Korean and Japanese Americans out perform in the US ed system too.

 

[cleetus]

My buddy taught at a charter school before becoming a public school teacher. My take is that the charter schools give a FAR better education than public school can because classes are smaller, the curriculum is fluid and less dogmatic, and there is more life experience available.

But let's be real here. One of the main reasons there is a push by some state gov't to take public funding and give to charter schools is to fuck public teacher's unions, and has little or nothing to do with "muh kid's edukashun!!" By taking away money from the public sector, there is less available for supplies, raises, or quality of life improvements. That's why so many public school teachers are always taking money out of their own pockets for their classrooms.

 

[Jkillah]

I think the biggest reason why we have under performing students is that the students/parents do not really care that much or put in the effort. The majority of what is currently taught in K-12 education could be picked up from just reading books. Even if you had a shitty teacher, you could still easily learn if you put the work in. I know that the majority of my teachers were not really superstars, but I still felt prepared when I went off to college.

In areas where the "less fortunate" kids/parents do really value education and do not have high career ambitions after finishing education, you can not really fix that regardless if there are more or less charter schools. I prefer more funds being put into magnets schools which recruit top performing students and have competitive entrance requirements. Put the money towards the ones who are are statistically more likely to succeed and have a higher rate discipline and ambition. If there are only so many resources available, more of the resources should go into what will give the most return on investment.

 

[Lord Coke]

you know what's completely unfair?

a person works hard their whole life, buys a house, pays for their kids to go to school and pays for the cities kids to go to school.

they then retire and have to live and survive on less, but the city continues to increase property/school tax every few years forcing retirees to contribute in perpetuity to a system that is being used by renters who have multiple children and contribute absolutely nothing into the system.

that is sort of the price of living in society. Do you want a system where parents are solely responsible for education? I don't think you will like that world.

 

[Deleted member 391673]

that is sort of the price of living in society. Do you want a system where parents are solely responsible for education? I don't think you will like that world.

i'd like a system where retirees on fixed income aren't forced into selling their homes because renters who don't know the meaning of birth control nor contribute financially overburden the system.

i think at a certain point one should be exempt from paying school tax, especially when they are retired and on fixed income.
i think at a certain point, those who end up not having kids should also be exempt from it as well. it's bullshit to pay into a system that is being utilized by a large number who contribute ZERO into the same system they are taking advantage of.

 

[Lord Coke]

i'd like a system where retirees on fixed income aren't forced into selling their homes because renters who don't know the meaning of birth control nor contribute financially overburden the system.

i think at a certain point one should be exempt from paying school tax, especially when they are retired and on fixed income.
i think at a certain point, those who end up not having kids should also be exempt from it as well. it's bullshit to pay into a system that is being utilized by a large number who contribute ZERO into the same system they are taking advantage of.

Ya but women who don't have kids are taking advantage of the system themselves. The system is designed to go easy on women because they are expected to reproduce. A women who does not reproduce has taken benefits without paying back by providing a new generation.