Comments on: Do Charter Schools matter?

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:12:00 +0000

“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”…W. Rogers.

Any ‘study’ incubated at Stanford is probably tainted. Since, according to leftist academic orthodoxy, there are no longer any objective standards, why would anyone accept a social analysis born in academia? They can’t even hold to standards in the sciences, as seen in the released e-mails relating to climatic change. The academic left are frauds, interested only in maintaining their own failed status quo, and thus, their own jobs.

By: Tennessee Walker

Tennessee Walker — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:27:30 +0000

Charter Schools fill a niche that traditional schools cannot. Their biggest successes have been with underserved minorities. If certain practices can be adapted for regular public schools, as noman suggests, then I think it is great. Certainly, public school administrators should watch these developments and adapt when necessary.

However there are a whole host of children where the targeted specialized charter schools can serve that traditional schools cannot. While there are ROTC programs at 99% of Delaware’s Public High Schools, I would not compare an ROTC class to the experience of the Delaware Military Academy. Just how much of the DMA experience can be transferred to regular public schools I question. What I do know is that DMA will give a specialized, niche experience that no “comprehensive” high school can.

By: David

David — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:47:18 +0000

You just contradicted every fact and study we discussed. They are not a brain drain and they do not work well when their are few of them. They tend to serve the students who need help, not those who are already well placed. You see that in this state. 85% of the charter schools are about serving the kids better not being an elite school aimed at attracting the top 5%. There is nothing wrong with that because the top 5% is underserved, but the reality is very few charter schools across the nation are designed that way. More are designed to help the special needs children.

By: noman

noman — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:47:57 +0000

I support charter schools, but not the way you do.

Charter schools are valuable as prototypes and incubators to develop new practices that can be transferred to the traditional schools. In order to do this, charter schools are necessarily a brain drain and a cash drain on the traditional schools. That is why charter schools should exist, but no more than a few of them.

So it is incorrect to see the charter school system as a replacement or a parallel system that competes with traditional schools. Charter schools are adjuncts and not replacements.

And when we evaluate charter schools, since they are incubators we should evaluate them by the practices they have developed and successfully transferred to the traditional schools.

By: David Anderson

David Anderson — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:09:37 +0000

It would be nice to have 5 or 6 straight studies instead of dualing studies based upon biased criteria. I think that not looking at whether or not the individual student improves or lags is a fundamental flaw in our entire system of accountability when you change schools. I have hopes that the Markell administration will move Delaware in a different direction with MAPS.

By: Tennessee Walker

Tennessee Walker — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:55:38 +0000

I have read numerous educational studies and sadly any detailed look at the internals and methodology tend to reveal a bias in favor of what the researcher wants to find and this tends to be a liberal bias.
It is sort of like Climate Gate. The researchers are more than willing to set the game rules so only their side wins and this tends to be for a liberal outcome.