The economic cost of charter schools

From what I get is that a charter school is a private school that gets public funding.

That is a silly notion. Just privatize all education. You don't need large campuses where you coral large groups of strangers into boxes for 50 mins listening to boring ass teacher, and then move on to another subject. There isn't enough time in each period to learn enough about topic to keep you interested. After the 24hr period you won't care to continue.

By privatizing, you can format any way you want. It can be five or so kids sitting in a nice park on a nice day. Or like ten kids sitting in a one room office with a chalk board. You can study which ever topic you want for as long as you feel like until you feel like moving on to someone else.

If you think you teacher sucks you can find a new one. And if these teachers suck, they don't eat, and their kids starve. If there are poor people who cannot afford on their own, we have something called welfare, sec 8, and food stamps that are already abused a lot, so they can get equivalent for education.

No need for public, charter, or even big large university campuses. Those places are just breeding grounds for liberals, SJWs, feminizes, pretentious yuppies, and phony hipsters.

Best thing though, is you won't get bullied. You don't have to be around kids you don't like. You can choose your class, and your mates, and your teacher. So no more school shooting.
 
What's the correlation between well educated students and public funding (or at least in deltas)? There's an inherent assumption that more money = better schools, which makes sense, but I've never seen that proven. But what makes sense to us isn't always true.

Wealthier students means parents can persuade teachers to freely give their children better grades, thereby giving the appearance of a better education. At least that was prevalent in the Northern NJ districts my HS is a part of.
 
The US public school system is a bust. The education bureaucracy has grown like crazy, especially since the establishment of the Department of Education.

Over the long run, the public will be better served by charter schools.
 
I don't believe in charter schools. I think schooling is as much about learning to interact with other people than anything else. Plus charter schools isolate the stoner and drop out kids from the smart kids which makes things worse for the loser kids. I believe the big public high school with people from different back grounds makes our society a more tolerant place. When you start having charter schools all the Asian kids are going to be in the tech charter schools. All the white are going to be in the drama, humanities and arts schools. So that is going to increase resentment.

Additionally young teens do not really know what they want. We should be forcing teens to do PE and learn civics. A mandatory cirriculum for all teens is a good thing because it increases civic virtue

This was a really well thought out post. I couldn't agree with you more.
 
The US public school system is a bust. The education bureaucracy has grown like crazy, especially since the establishment of the Department of Education.

Over the long run, the public will be better served by charter schools.

How so?
 
The US public school system is a bust. The education bureaucracy has grown like crazy, especially since the establishment of the Department of Education.

Over the long run, the public will be better served by charter schools.

Finland has outlawed charter schools and has ranked considerably higher than murka for years in education rankings.
 
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.
 
What's the correlation between well educated students and public funding (or at least in deltas)? There's an inherent assumption that more money = better schools, which makes sense, but I've never seen that proven. But what makes sense to us isn't always true.

I'm sure someone has stats on it, but it seems that well educated is a relative term. A think parental involvement and getting kids in a setting where all the kids are wanting to learn makes a world of difference.

D.C. and the state of NY spend the most per student 20k+. US news ranks NY's pre-k thru 12 educational system as 31st in the country.
 
I'm sure someone has stats on it, but it seems that well educated is a relative term. A think parental involvement and getting kids in a setting where all the kids are wanting to learn makes a world of difference.

D.C. and the state of NY spend the most per student 20k+. US news ranks NY's pre-k thru 12 educational system as 31st in the country.

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.
 
I'm for school choice but I think a charter system needs to be highly regulated if it's going to perform it intended result. You have to put measures in place for a long term sustainable school when applications come in and not a quick cash grab for a company/ person that's going to run it into the ground in a year or two. Shifting students back and forth just isn't healthy and some states have made the mistake of being too lax on who could start up these places. I think you almost need to start a place that isn't funded with government dollars at first and if they last 5-10 years, begin offering funding in return for specific rules with enrollment.
 
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.

I think what the issue is would be funding per student doesn't work well for the overhead and fixed costs of a school district. Not everything can just be scaled down if x number of students leave the school and there's less classes. You possibly then have too large of a building for classrooms or faciitlies that normally would require a larger student base to sustain. That's why shifts in student populations have to be monitored carefully with a charter program not just in the enrollment process of the private school but also in the amount of loss a public school can handle over x number of years and plan accordingly.
 
I'm for school choice but I think a charter system needs to be highly regulated if it's going to perform it intended result. You have to put measures in place for a long term sustainable school when applications come in and not a quick cash grab for a company/ person that's going to run it into the ground in a year or two. Shifting students back and forth just isn't healthy and some states have made the mistake of being too lax on who could start up these places. I think you almost need to start a place that isn't funded with government dollars at first and if they last 5-10 years, begin offering funding in return for specific rules with enrollment.

I think that makes a lot of sense. Make them show a track record of economic sustainability and academic success before they're eligible for government co-funding.
 
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

Private schools can expel bad students.

Also parents that are spending more on education are probably more active in their child's education.
 
I think that makes a lot of sense. Make them show a track record of economic sustainability and academic success before they're eligible for government co-funding.

Yea, starting them out on funding is just going to be a magnet for the wrong type of business people who would start these schools. I think states like Michigan have a lot of potential if they made these types of revisions for their system.

PA kinda has something like this. Schools can apply to a certain program and if accepted, tax payers (who also signed a bunch of applications and were accepted) can have a portion of their taxes go directly to that place. I think it originally started as a semi charity type program but started to become this as well and it's provided a decent opportunity for private schools that have shown they've been able to survive on donations and tuition.
 
Just a way to funnel taxpayer money to corporate interests, a main Republican policy goal.
Shows study out of major California counties, blames republicans. Lol.
 
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.
 
Higher test scores are a bit of a misnomer. We're talking "higher" as in one or two percentage points, not any substantial amount.

Factor in that these charter schools are siphoning money from publics, and it turns the whole argument on its head. You took all this money from public schools, effectively making them do more with less, and you barely beat them?

Are lower public school scores because of the efficacious nature of charter schools, or because the publics simply have less money as a whole? The gap isn't nearly as wide as "school choice" advocates have represented it, and it narrows to the point of nonexistence when you factor in other negative effects like charter school segregation.

Adjusted for PPP, the US spends more per student on k-12 education than any other country in the world. In nominal (non-PPP) dollars, we spend the most per student after Switzerland. Our lower student outcomes aren't because we're not spending enough money. We spend the most money.
 
What's the correlation between well educated students and public funding (or at least in deltas)? There's an inherent assumption that more money = better schools, which makes sense, but I've never seen that proven. But what makes sense to us isn't always true.

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.
 
Back
Top