Education Reform Thread

[Salodin]

If any government "less than ideal solution" was shut down tomorrow in place of a better solution, the problem would always get worse before getting better and tomorrow would always be a challenge. That doesnt change the fact that charter schools take money away from public schools all for, on average, the same if not worse results. The public would be better served if we just put that money back into public education and made our current schools better, and built/renovated new schools in areas where charter schools filled that void.

Please dont feel like I'm attacking or knocking you though, cause it's def not the educators fault.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Ksandra]

While I get what you are saying, I really don’t think shutting down charters would be the catalyst for change. Until we start already building those schools, where are you going to put the kids? There are several schools in LA who have class sizes of 40+. It’s not like there are a ton of empty classrooms, either. There are simply just more kids than they have the space for.

It just sounds like a completely shitty thing to do to an entire generation of kids.


Start pumping in money to build more schools to actually hold these charter kids.

Also, start giving schools some flexibility, so they can help fill the needs of students who usually drown in public schools.

[Salodin]

I'd say turn those charter schools into public schools that follow all the same rules, since the basic difference is charter schools are just public schools ran with slightly different criteria and expectations. We just need to build more schools period, which is strictly a "we need more tax money" problem that removing charter schools would help alleviate but not completely fix. My concern is giving the umbrella of education more money, but not addressing the difference in outcomes between public and charter schools. If charter schools produced better outcomes I wouldn't be against them, but they dont so /shrug.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

Charter schools are opt-in public schools and that is the majority of their value add.

[Ksandra]

You can’t just steal privately bought buildings to make them public schools, and who has the money to buy them?

Again, until you pump enough money into the public schools to handle the influx of kids, then you shouldn’t just shut down all the charters.


Also, I should note that I am focusing on the LAUSD schools. Charters here have a fuckton of oversight and are required to follow all standards, testing, Education Codes, etc. or they are shut down.


I’m not speaking on behalf of charters elsewhere.

[Ksandra]

I was heading down a mountain today (went to Mammoth to let the kids play in the snow. Tons of fun!)

Anyway, I'm home now, and if anyone is honestly interested in the performance of LA charter schools, there was a study done by Stanford University specfically about LA Charters:

https://achieve.lausd.net/Page/4631

Study found here:

https://ca01000043.schoolwires.net/c...ort%202014.pdf

Based on the findings presented here, the typical student in a Los Angeles charter
school gains more learning in a year than her TPS counterpart, equal to about 50
additional days in reading and 79 additional days in math. These positive patterns
emerge in a student’s first year of charter attendance and persist over time. Black
and Hispanic students in poverty especially benefit from attendance at charter
schools.

and

The share of underperforming charter schools is balanced, however, by the
proportion of charter schools that are achieving at high levels and have positive
growth. For reading, the proportion is about 30 percent, and for math it exceeds
36 percent. Should the positive growth trends seen in this report persist, the share
of schools that currently lag the state average for absolute achievement would be
expected to decline.

I'm not trying to imply charters are better than public, but to give people a sense of how much LA has been working to make charters comparable and keeping them up to standards.

[Byrthnoth]

You're probably just looking at selection bias, which is exaggerated because the comparison schools are being selected against. Here's the deal:
1) Charter schools are opt-in and offer the hope of a superior educational experience.
2a) Parents who are invested in getting their kids a better education opt-in. Parents being invested in their kids' childhood educational attainment correlates with their kids doing better.
2b) Parents who don't care enough or aren't in a stable enough situation to opt-in don't opt-in, both of which are correlated with lower childhood educational attainment.
3) Now we've siloed the kids who were already going to do better academically off into charter schools, leaving the kids who were going to struggle more in the normal schools.

The "impact" of charter schools cannot be disentangled from the selection bias that their admission process creates. I'm honestly surprised that their observed effects aren't larger.


We had an early charter school in my district as a kid. The community was 50% black, 40% white, 10% other. The charter school was 40% Asian, 40% white, 20% black. The charter school did really well academically compared to public schools, but most of the kids there would have been put in private school if they hadn't gotten in to the charter. Strong selection bias, so strong in this case that the existence of charter schools probably didn't disadvantage the public too much (no more than if there was another private school that was subsidized with state money.)

[Ksandra]

Your assumption is that charter kids are a bunch of private school wannabes, which has not been my experience at all in LA.

Kids that come to my school are usually:

avoiding gang violence due to rivals at public schools
avoid bullying
have strong emotional problems (we have onsite support)
don't speak English due to our Spanish support
have an iep (we have a strong record of taking good care of iep kids including our principal being in all the meetings which NEVER happens in public schools.)
sports (we have strong girl teams)
extremely poor (as we give a lot of support and services)


The only sort of academics people love about our school is we have a partnership with the local mission college to take free college classes while taking regular classes. But let's be real in that this community college isn't like "the best around" or anything. It definitely gets shit done, but we aren't attracting private school kids over it.


Now, I can't speak for all charters, as I obviously don't work at them; however, I have been to a fuckton of trainings at this point with other charters in the area, and a lot of this stuff is similar. They aren't coming here because of academics, they're coming because they need help and they (or their parents) feel like they are being ignored at the public schools.

[Greatguardian]

I think the private school bit was only meant to be part of his real world example. Really, all he's saying is that kids who go to charter schools have parents who give enough of a fuck about their education to sign up for a charter school. Having parents that give half a fuck is already a huge advantage for these kids, so kids in charter schools should be doing marginally better than kids in public schools since the public school average is going to be diluted by kids with parents who don't give a fuck.

[Salodin]

I just dont see how a charter school, which js always funded with public money, is better than just opening another elementary school with the same standards as the rest of the public schools. I've also havent seen a charter school boast more challenging curriculum when compared to the same grade at another elementary school, so I just dont get it. Aside from just being in a community that probably tries a little harder in their day to day, theres no real discernable difference that justifies not just fixing the public education system.

They're basically private schools, paid for by tax dollars.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Ksandra]

I just dont see how a charter school, which js always funded with public money, is better than just opening another elementary school with the same standards as the rest of the public schools.

Charters get less public funding than public schools. So they would be cheaper to the taxpayers than opening another public elementary school.


And, again, I am not saying we need charters, I am saying we need charters until we start seeing public schools fixing their shit, and yes, a lot of that has to do with the way the states are running things vs. the schools themselves. But, if LAUSD teachers want smaller classes AND charters shutdown, then they are going to cost LAUSD even more money, which I don't think they physically have.

I also, love our my particular school is run, with or without parental support. I wanna keep teaching the way I've been teaching because I feel like the public system (the way it CURRENTLY is) would make me change fields in a heartbeat.



[edi]t I should also clarify, since it wouldn't seem that way based on my post, I AM very glad the teachers are striking and are saying they've had enough. The class size issue is huge. I think it's some stupid statistic like half of teachers leave the field after 5 years, and that is one of the major issues.

I am just wishing they didn't make charters a part of the strike. Many of the charter teachers want to work with them, and support their striking, so it's kinda a slap in the face ya know?

[archibaldcrane]

Charters get less public funding than public schools. So they would be cheaper to the taxpayers than opening another public elementary school.

Don't charters have far fewer expensive-to-educate special needs students than public schools?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[synistar]

Probably not. There are 6 LAUSD high schools in my area. 3 of them were granted permission to become a charter school, one of them granted affiliated charter status in the past 10 years. They are still some of the largest schools in the district, one of them being Birmingham Community Charter High School in Reseda.

The grim reality is LAUSD is so damn large that each area has its own issues to deal with that are not "one district policy fits all." It's probably why all those schools are attempting to get more autonomy from the district.

[Ksandra]

Don't charters have far fewer expensive-to-educate special needs students than public schools?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Short answer: no.

Long answer: Possible? But probably not to any great significance when looking at the general population.

Explanation:

1. Charters are lottery-based schools, meaning they cannot reject any student from coming into the school, no matter the severity, unless they have reached their cap (the charter sets the cap, and must abide by the cap.)

2. If the charter does not offer the facilities, then the parent can request the student moved to a school specifically for proper services. But the charter must still pay services to that student. I cannot go into specifics, as that would be a huge FAPE violation, but I know offhand of two students who do not go to our school, but we still pay for all their services.

3. I forget (and honestly, lazy to look up atm) if it's the state or LAUSD that regulates it, but you are supposed to have a certain percentage of students with special needs (unless you are option 3, more on that below). If your percentage is too low, you will have to present a ton of evidence showing that you are trying to recruit students with special needs and it's just that the area has a general low pop of students with special needs. If you are too high, the district will come in to make sure you aren't over diagnosing in order to receive extra funds.

4. Schools gain extra funds for special needs students, but afaik, the amount is the same whether it is public or charter.

Number 2, is where it can get kinda funky, and often opponents of charters will often shout that charters often do not end up with the more severe cases of students with special needs. This is probably very true, but they are denying the existence of Option 3 (mentioned above).

Charters schools can list themselves as Option 3, which are schools specifically designed for students with special needs. These are the schools that will have all-day special classes for the more moderate/severe students and often have facilities for ED students as well. These schools are too various for me to give a general concept, but you can imagine that many of these schools severely focus on life skills, physical therapy, speech therapy, etc. etc. with special facilities catered to various needs.

Option 3's existence is why I say when looking at the general whole the money ends up being about the same.


Charters are given less money to the state overall as they are supposed to make up the extra funds through grants. Low-income/special education schools have more grants open to them simply based on the fact companies want to give grants to low-income/special education. You'll find that those two types of schools are the ones who last longer in LAUSD, and that the fake private ones tend to shut down as they can't afford to give the education they advertise.

[6souls]

http://www.mndaily.com/article/2019/...y-of-minnesota
https://www.seeking.com/sugar-baby-university/usa

Approx 3M college students in the US have become "sugar babies" for Sugar Daddies & Mommies to help afford tuition.

[synistar]

LAUSD/UTLA strike is officially over.

[Fiye]

The new agreement with the district includes a 6% raise, a gradual decrease in class sizes over the next few years and more counselors, librarians and nurses.
Union leaders and the Los Angeles Unified School District had struck a tentative deal around dawn Tuesday after a marathon 21-hour negotiating session, Mayor Eric Garcetti said.
"It is a historic agreement," the mayor, who helped mediate the dueling sides, said before Tuesday's vote. "It gets to lower class sizes. It gets to proper support staff."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/22/us/lo...y-6/index.html

Fuck yeah.

[Ksandra]

LAUSD/UTLA strike is officially over.

They got some really good progress, too:

https://www.latimes.com/local/educat...122-story.html

Some important highlights:

The contract calls for schools to see a class size reduction of about four students in three years — though 90 high-needs schools will see classes drop by six students in that time.

The contract eliminates a clause that currently allows the district to exceed the agreed-upon maximum class sizes.

The district would have until the 2022-23 school year to reach the agreed-upon class size averages and maximums.

Sounds like HS classes will be capped at 39 instead of 45, which is still way too large, but a definite improvement.

I don't actually know if nurses are really needed (can't do much anyway without being sued), but I wouldn't complain either. Librarians is awesome as I know many schools basically have dusty libraries with no one to watch them.


It looks like they are going to propose a bill on charter caps (which I'm ok with), but that LAUSD can't actually do that themselves. They can present the bill to the state and it makes sense.

[Gredival]

Ksandra what's your average class size?

[Ksandra]

Our school caps at 25. I wanna say my personal average is 19.