Like charter schools? Here's how not to run them

[Aimless]

[Lewkowski]

Eh 18 minutes give me the cliff notes.

[Aimless]

That would detract significantly from the experience, making the whole business sad instead of funny. Just take a tablet and some headphones with you next time you have a major no. 2.

[EyeKhan]

That would detract significantly from the experience, making the whole business sad instead of funny. Just take a tablet and some headphones with you next time you have a major no. 2.

A. That's a great show, John Oliver is awesome.

B. The problem with charter schools is too many of those who push them are more interested in dismantling the US public school system than they are in improving the education of US kids. How else do you explain states with such lax oversight of their charter school system? The goal is all about quantity with no thought to quality.

I'm all for charter schools as incubators of innovation with the goal of using whatever best practices are identified for the betterment of the entire education system. But that's not really what's happening, is it? In Michigan, analysis of the overall performance at educating kids of charter schools vs. public schools shows that on balance, charter schools do very slightly worse than the public schools. Really? Then what's the fucking point?

[Lewkowski]

I'm all for charter schools as incubators of innovation with the goal of using whatever best practices are identified for the betterment of the entire education system. But that's not really what's happening, is it? In Michigan, analysis of the overall performance at educating kids of charter schools vs. public schools shows that on balance, charter schools do very slightly worse than the public schools. Really? Then what's the fucking point?

Some charter schools are a MASSIVE improvement over the public school alternative. And then there are copy cats who fail to do as well. Just like some private prisons work great but a good chunk of them suck. The nice part about charter schools is if they fail they can go under, that is much harder to do with a public school.

[Loki]

It would be nice if opponents of charter schools didn't try to ban them all just because of the bad ones. And if the supporters of charter schools didn't support all charter schools, including the awful ones. How hard can it be to provide more funding for good ones and close the bad ones?

[Lewkowski]

It would be nice if opponents of charter schools didn't try to ban them all just because of the bad ones. And if the supporters of charter schools didn't support all charter schools, including the awful ones. How hard can it be to provide more funding for good ones and close the bad ones?

It really wouldn't but folks are very polarized on the issue. I blame the left mostly (shocker I know) but the right does it too.

[Loki]

I mostly agree. The unions have gone after all charter schools, probably because they're afraid that a new model will develop that will make the way public school teachers teach obsolete. The right makes no attempt to shut down bad schools and oddly refuses to create an evaluation mechanism for determining which charter schools are bad. Neither side cares much about the quality of education being provided to children.

As for the video: is there a reason McDonald's has a more stringent process for choosing new franchisees than these states have for choosing who runs their charter schools?

[Spenni]

I mostly agree. The unions have gone after all charter schools, probably because they're afraid that a new model will develop that will make the way public school teachers teach obsolete. The right makes no attempt to shut down bad schools and oddly refuses to create an evaluation mechanism for determining which charter schools are bad. Neither side cares much about the quality of education being provided to children.

As for the video: is there a reason McDonald's has a more stringent process for choosing new franchisees than these states have for choosing who runs their charter schools?

Last I checked you had to prove something along the lines of six million dollars in revenue potential in the local market, to even get to the table for franchise negotiations with McDonald. That is why you never see a Mickey D in a town under a population 6000. Barring being next to a highway of course.


Completely irrelevant to charter schools, but I wanted to contribute!

[Lewkowski]

I mostly agree. The unions have gone after all charter schools, probably because they're afraid that a new model will develop that will make the way public school teachers teach obsolete. The right makes no attempt to shut down bad schools and oddly refuses to create an evaluation mechanism for determining which charter schools are bad. Neither side cares much about the quality of education being provided to children.

This and Ethanol politics is deeply depressing.

[EyeKhan]

This and Ethanol politics is deeply depressing.

Seems like everything you and Loki are volleying around comes back to oversight. Privatizing traditionally government functions doesn't mean the government doesn't keep the responsibility to make sure what they've farmed out is done properly by the private sector. The private sector only cares about quality if their customer cares about quality. Quality costs money, so if the customer isn't looking, shorting it is a good way to boost profit/ reduce cost. That's how this shit fails.

[wiggin]

Seems like everything you and Loki are volleying around comes back to oversight. Privatizing traditionally government functions doesn't mean the government doesn't keep the responsibility to make sure what they've farmed out is done properly by the private sector. The private sector only cares about quality if their customer cares about quality. Quality costs money, so if the customer isn't looking, shorting it is a good way to boost profit/ reduce cost. That's how this shit fails.

I think the point is that public schools are not necessarily a better alternative. Yes, there are atrocious charter schools that appear to have been managed criminally badly and with little attention to an overarching plan. But the same could be said for a depressingly large number of public schools - and they coast along on inertia. When municipalities try to close failing public schools, they get lambasted by a variety of groups, even when the schools are half-empty and failing their students miserably (cf Chicago and Rahm Emanuel). There are some legitimate grievances in there - e.g. increasing the commute for kids in peripheral areas, making them cross gang lines, etc. - but there are ways to address those issues without allowing zombie schools to remain on the books. At least charter schools that fail can be (fairly readily) closed.

The idea behind charter schools is not just to provide places where new educational models can be tested out - in principle, after all, there's no reason a public school couldn't theoretically do that either. It's to free charter schools of the ossified systems that drive public school operation in large parts of the US - teacher tenure, pay based on seniority rather than merit, limited to no accountability for teaching outcomes, etc. I think that charter schools are obviously a mixed bag, and that there should be greater scrutiny of them - but there should also be greater scrutiny applied to our failing public schools.

To some extent, the popularity of charter schools is rooted in what some now view as the inevitable mediocrity of public schooling in large chunks of our country. That's a sad reality, perhaps, and maybe more attention can be paid to fixing our public schools. Yet the aforementioned constraints on public schooling makes it very difficult to enact meaningful change, so maybe charter schools are just one - imperfect - way to address the problem.

[ImAnOgre]

A. That's a great show, John Oliver is awesome.

While John Oliver may be awesome, the show in my opinion is not. I have yet to see one piece against Hillary, but many against Trump. Probably not John's fault, his parent company Time Warner, which also owns CNN, has donated a TON to Hillary's campaign.

Give me at least something that appears unbiased if you want me to watch. Sucks too, as his episode on Net Neutrality was good, but i'll never watch another one.

[EyeKhan]

I think the point is that public schools are not necessarily a better alternative. Yes, there are atrocious charter schools that appear to have been managed criminally badly and with little attention to an overarching plan. But the same could be said for a depressingly large number of public schools - and they coast along on inertia. When municipalities try to close failing public schools, they get lambasted by a variety of groups, even when the schools are half-empty and failing their students miserably (cf Chicago and Rahm Emanuel). There are some legitimate grievances in there - e.g. increasing the commute for kids in peripheral areas, making them cross gang lines, etc. - but there are ways to address those issues without allowing zombie schools to remain on the books. At least charter schools that fail can be (fairly readily) closed.

For those really interested in improving education, I can see the appeal of charters in that it allows them to enact reforms/ innovations without having to navigate the various bureaucracies and interest groups hampering public school reform. It really is a (further) admission that the US system of government is broken - when the 'system' is so tangled that and full of obstruction and uncompromising interests that nothing can be reformed... Or maybe it's just a lazy end run option that lets the impatient skirt the system.

Seems like one negative with charters is a great deal of inconsistency from school to school. Every charter school is operated differently by different organizations/ companies presumably with differing policies. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Seems like there's a series of best practices for educating kids to be good, productive citizens. Once those are identified and vetted, shouldn't every school operate that way?

The idea behind charter schools is not just to provide places where new educational models can be tested out - in principle, after all, there's no reason a public school couldn't theoretically do that either. It's to free charter schools of the ossified systems that drive public school operation in large parts of the US - teacher tenure, pay based on seniority rather than merit, limited to no accountability for teaching outcomes, etc.

Are you arguing the intent (one intent) of charter schools is to weaken, and/or bust the teachers unions?

To some extent, the popularity of charter schools is rooted in what some now view as the inevitable mediocrity of public schooling in large chunks of our country. That's a sad reality, perhaps, and maybe more attention can be paid to fixing our public schools. Yet the aforementioned constraints on public schooling makes it very difficult to enact meaningful change, so maybe charter schools are just one - imperfect - way to address the problem.

It's not inevitable (IMHO) - but unfortunately the causes of the localized mediocrity are hugely varied, many of which can't be addressed by an end-run around the teachers unions and bureaucratic obstacles. Which is probably why, on average, charters aren't any better than, on average, public schools.

[EyeKhan]

While John Oliver may be awesome, the show in my opinion is not. I have yet to see one piece against Hillary, but many against Trump. Probably not John's fault, his parent company Time Warner, which also owns CNN, has donated a TON to Hillary's campaign.

Give me at least something that appears unbiased if you want me to watch. Sucks too, as his episode on Net Neutrality was good, but i'll never watch another one.

His show's pretty awesome too. Sorry about your opinion, that's a bummer.

Yeah, I agree the show is biased to a more progressive view of the world, but IMO that's a good thing. The bias isn't unfair, it's reflective of reality, something increasingly lost on conservatives these days. Compare the vast sea of dumb-shit associated with candidate Tump to the mostly-crap the right keeps churning and regurgitating about candidate Clinton. See, the problem is none of the "issues" against candidate Clinton are anything remotely comparable to, as deserving of attention as, or entertaining (and SCARY) as the sheer madness of the Trump candidacy. You might want "even" criticism of the two candidates, but they are not equivalent by any stretch of one's imagination. Oliver's show apparently isn't buying into the false equivalency that keeps the mainstream media pretending that Hillary's foibles are remotely in the same universe as Trumps.

[wiggin]

Seems like one negative with charters is a great deal of inconsistency from school to school. Every charter school is operated differently by different organizations/ companies presumably with differing policies. I'm not sure that's a good idea. Seems like there's a series of best practices for educating kids to be good, productive citizens. Once those are identified and vetted, shouldn't every school operate that way?

I think you would be surprised at the level of ongoing disagreement about the 'best' practice for educating children. There are certainly plenty of awful methods, but I think the jury is still out on a best practice. I agree there should be some minimal standard any school should meet, and obviously some ongoing supervision. But if you make it too suffocating you will defeat the very purpose of a charter school.

Are you arguing the intent (one intent) of charter schools is to weaken, and/or bust the teachers unions?

Yes, that is certainly one intent. Certainly charter school teachers can unionize (and some have) but they are not part of the massive entrenched public school teacher unions that, for example, fight against merit based pay, longer school hours/years, and the ability to fire teachers.

It's not inevitable (IMHO) - but unfortunately the causes of the localized mediocrity are hugely varied, many of which can't be addressed by an end-run around the teachers unions and bureaucratic obstacles. Which is probably why, on average, charters aren't any better than, on average, public schools.

I would bet that the variation is higher with charter schools - i.e. even if the mean is the same, you don't have many mediocre charter schools, but a bunch of above average ones and a bunch of terrible ones (I don't know if this analysis has been done and I have little interest in finding out). So that suggests if you cut away the deadwood you might actually see improvements. Furthermore, we are clearly in the early days - the massive expansion of charter schools in recent years is bound to be fraught with problems. I don't think that means we should ignore the problems, but it suggests that as things settle down we may see different trends emerging as the clearly failing schools are closed and successful ones continue to thrive.

I think that the very worst public schools could easily be improved by being closed and replaced with something else (whether a charter school or not). It's nice to wave our hands and say 'it's complicated' but in reality the problems are pretty entrenched. A new school without legacy issues might not be the worst plan. I have lots of friends who have taught in deeply troubled schools, and the stories they tell are heartbreaking. Yes, some of the problems are in the neighborhood or at home, but some of it is merely a matter of low expectations, lazy or incompetent teaching, decrepit facilities, and clueless administration. Charter schools can fix these problems - they just don't always do.

The point is that we shouldn't attack all charter schools just because many of them aren't all that good. They have their place in our current system, and with time and appropriate oversight/help I am hopeful they will improve overall performance.

[Flixy]

While John Oliver may be awesome, the show in my opinion is not. I have yet to see one piece against Hillary, but many against Trump. Probably not John's fault, his parent company Time Warner, which also owns CNN, has donated a TON to Hillary's campaign.

Give me at least something that appears unbiased if you want me to watch. Sucks too, as his episode on Net Neutrality was good, but i'll never watch another one.

He's definitely biased, though on the brought side he's also not hiding that. To me it's pretty clear that it's more like an editorial (similar to his old show the daily show which was very open about not being an unbiased news show). Btw I think I do remember critical peeves about hillary.

On a side note, Trump is so extraordinarily unqualified that even if his show was unbiased, he'd be in more critical pieces.

[wiggin]

He's definitely biased, though on the brought side he's also not hiding that. To me it's pretty clear that it's more like an editorial (similar to his old show the daily show which was very open about not being an unbiased news show). Btw I think I do remember critical peeves about hillary.

On a side note, Trump is so extraordinarily unqualified that even if his show was unbiased, he'd be in more critical pieces.

I actually agree with ImAnOgre that the show isn't all that good, but it's not because of bias.

My issue with his show - and with this class of 'newstainment' in general - is that by dedicating 20 minutes to a topic, he gives his treatment a veneer of respectability and depth. We are supposed to believe that his analysis is in some ways sophisticated and comprehensive. It rarely is - he is presenting a one-sided screed rather than a nuanced discussion. That isn't to say that I don't agree with his positions in a very broad reading - I often do - but there is almost always contextual information that is left out of his stories. To an extent, that's fine - John Oliver is an entertainer, not a journalist. And yet let's be realistic - this might be the most information many of his viewers ever get on a topic. I'd like that information to be conveyed with a bit more complexity. Maybe it doesn't make for as good television - simple and overstated arguments work well instead - but it would be the responsible thing to do.

Also, it isn't all that funny. The show is a way for people who want to think they are getting informed about something confirm their already-held political positions and laugh about how superior they are. They would do better to do some actual research into a given issue and form an independent opinion. Then they might not like John Oliver as much (they'll wince every time he makes an unfounded generalization, logical fallacy, or glosses over some important details), but they will be better informed and better able to justify their opinions.

[RandBlade]

Seems like everything you and Loki are volleying around comes back to oversight. Privatizing traditionally government functions doesn't mean the government doesn't keep the responsibility to make sure what they've farmed out is done properly by the private sector. The private sector only cares about quality if their customer cares about quality. Quality costs money, so if the customer isn't looking, shorting it is a good way to boost profit/ reduce cost. That's how this shit fails.

No, the private sector cares about what works. If there is healthy competition and you don't provide quality then the customer will go somewhere else that does and you will fail.

Privatisation without the risk of failure for the private organisation is not competition, it is not proper privatisation. The risk of doom hangs over every private organisation and removing that removes moral hazard.

The private sector in general works better than the public sector due to the rigors of competition. A private sector without competition is not a real market.

[Lewkowski]

His show's pretty awesome too. Sorry about your opinion, that's a bummer.

Yeah, I agree the show is biased to a more progressive view of the world, but IMO that's a good thing. The bias isn't unfair, it's reflective of reality, something increasingly lost on conservatives these days. Compare the vast sea of dumb-shit associated with candidate Tump to the mostly-crap the right keeps churning and regurgitating about candidate Clinton. See, the problem is none of the "issues" against candidate Clinton are anything remotely comparable to, as deserving of attention as, or entertaining (and SCARY) as the sheer madness of the Trump candidacy. You might want "even" criticism of the two candidates, but they are not equivalent by any stretch of one's imagination. Oliver's show apparently isn't buying into the false equivalency that keeps the mainstream media pretending that Hillary's foibles are remotely in the same universe as Trumps.

Clinton lies and lies and lies. Even when she doesn't need to lie, she lies. For example the nonsense about landing 'under sniper fire' that was wholly discredited. Or her many different contortions regarding her private e-mail server. Or her lies about what she knew about Bill's infidelities. I'm not defending Trump and his idiocy but Clinton is an incredibly easy target.

I'm always amused by the this 'false equivalency' narrative about the 'mainstream media.' No one outside of liberals actually liked the equal-time clause on radio for example. Literally the only people who want to mandate equal time for both sides of an issue... are liberals. The media is free to do pretty much whatever they want outside of specific libel/slander stuff or Gawker's shenanigans.

[GGT]

The US needs to get off our ass and decide, once and for all, if we value Public Education for everyone, or not. And how to fund that. Until we complete the exercise, people "with means" will continue to buy a home based on zip codes and better school districts, and those "without means" will be trapped in crappy school districts.

*I used to live in a really great urban neighborhood, but the school taxes were outrageous, and the public schools were sub-par. That's why most of the neighborhood sent their kids to private schools. That's when I realized the disconnect....*

[Khendraja'aro]

No, the private sector cares about what works. If there is healthy competition and you don't provide quality then the customer will go somewhere else that does and you will fail.

Privatisation without the risk of failure for the private organisation is not competition, it is not proper privatisation. The risk of doom hangs over every private organisation and removing that removes moral hazard.

The private sector in general works better than the public sector due to the rigors of competition. A private sector without competition is not a real market.

I've yet to see a something that reliably works for everyone when it comes to schooling. Because, let's face it: You do have to provide schooling for everyone and not merely a select few.

Also: The tools for measuring a school's proficiency are usually quite flawed and won't hold up to the usual standards in science. I mean, sciences like psychology have massive problems with quite a number of studies. And that's for scientific studies which usually try to normalize their measurements to exlude external factors.

And then you plonk a single teacher in there and "measure" his "skill" by doing tests and similar idiocies. And punish him for having a class which is simply substandard through no fault of his own. Sometimes it is that random.

That's where your idea of "competition" falls flat on its face, Rand. We simply don't have the tools to reliably measure teaching success at the needed granularity for something like that.

I mean, yes, there's the obvious stuff. The easy stuff. Granted. But you then get the asshats who insist that a difference of 0.1 in the average GPA of schools somehow is meaningful.

[LittleFuzzy]

I've yet to see a something that reliably works for everyone when it comes to schooling.

That's true. It's also one of the reasons to have variety, options besides the "one-size-fits-all" public school system. The more heavily urbanized environments can manage some of that in their public system but outside that it's really harder to do with the necessary emphasis on getting efficiencies of scale in providing a general education to the entire population. Charter systems help a very great deal in achieving this in the less urban areas.

[RandBlade]

I've yet to see a something that reliably works for everyone when it comes to schooling. Because, let's face it: You do have to provide schooling for everyone and not merely a select few.

All the more reason to have a variety of approaches and not enforced uniformity.

Also: The tools for measuring a school's proficiency are usually quite flawed and won't hold up to the usual standards in science. I mean, sciences like psychology have massive problems with quite a number of studies. And that's for scientific studies which usually try to normalize their measurements to exlude external factors.

Agreed entirely, its a complicated area. The simplest solution is to get as much information out there as possible and then let the parents decide, if they choose a particular school then funding goes with that pupil. If few parents choose a school rather than a neighbouring one then it fails and closes. The state can have a role to play in helping edge cases, eg give a premium of extra funding to taking on the toughest pupils, reward funding for exceptional performance, boosted funding for remote schools that are required even though there's few pupils etc, etc as well as the stick and not just the carrot where appropriate to deal with critical issues.

I own and run a private industry business but the state still has a role to play (that I don't object to). I need to give good service and quality to my customers to get the business through the doors but there are a number of Council and government agencies and the Police who could at any moment and without warning inspect us and if required shut us down if we are not performing to the standards required by law. I don't object to that, the government sets the parameters and I religiously abide by them and then get on with doing the best job going over and above the minimum required standards.

And then you plonk a single teacher in there and "measure" his "skill" by doing tests and similar idiocies. And punish him for having a class which is simply substandard through no fault of his own. Sometimes it is that random.

That's where your idea of "competition" falls flat on its face, Rand. We simply don't have the tools to reliably measure teaching success at the needed granularity for something like that.

I mean, yes, there's the obvious stuff. The easy stuff. Granted. But you then get the asshats who insist that a difference of 0.1 in the average GPA of schools somehow is meaningful.

Did I propose any of that?

[Khendraja'aro]

reward funding for exceptional performance [...] etc as well as the stick and not just the carrot[...]

You missed the point completely and utterly. How on earth do you reliably measure performance in a fair and reliable way?

You seem to be stuck on your own company's performance paramaters which I can guarantee are a completely different beast from a school's. There are so many influencing factors it's not even funnny anymore.

And you seem to think that you can reduce that to a few numbers and call it a day. That is not so.

And yes, you proposed that: With your "stick and carrot" talk you showed your true colours. I always love those armchair generals who think they can talk about schools merely because they were pupils once at a time.

Hey, Rand, maybe you should let me run your company? Can't be too hard, I'm doing some shopping every other day, after all!

[Veldan Rath]

So we can't discuss it as we are not teachers? We have no say?

[RandBlade]

You missed the point completely and utterly. How on earth do you reliably measure performance in a fair and reliable way?

You can't. You can measure it in a fair[ish] and reliable[ish] way though. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of what is better than the status quo.

There are so many influencing factors it's not even funnny anymore.

Gee life's complicated, that doesn't happen in any other industry elsewhere ever

And you seem to think that you can reduce that to a few numbers and call it a day. That is not so.

Never said that. Said the exact opposite in fact.

And yes, you proposed that: With your "stick and carrot" talk you showed your true colours.

My talk of carrot and stick and then going on to mention eg inspection regimes etc meant reducing it down to just a few numbers does it? No it doesn't.

[wiggin]

You missed the point completely and utterly. How on earth do you reliably measure performance in a fair and reliable way?

You seem to be stuck on your own company's performance paramaters which I can guarantee are a completely different beast from a school's. There are so many influencing factors it's not even funnny anymore.

And you seem to think that you can reduce that to a few numbers and call it a day. That is not so.

And yes, you proposed that: With your "stick and carrot" talk you showed your true colours. I always love those armchair generals who think they can talk about schools merely because they were pupils once at a time.

Hey, Rand, maybe you should let me run your company? Can't be too hard, I'm doing some shopping every other day, after all!

Khendra, I don't disagree that evaluation of schools, students, and teachers is a complicated issue and has substantial room for improvement, but are you suggesting that just because evaluation systems are imperfect we shouldn't use them at all? Very few jobs can be 'fairly and reliably' evaluated as a matter of course. Modern life is complicated, and there are all sorts of factors involved in one's success or lack thereof professionally. But that doesn't mean we should ignore performance - it also doesn't mean we should rely on purely subjective measures of performance like peer or supervisor evaluations. In general, most jobs use some mix of measurable metrics and subjective ratings to arrive at a decision on employment termination, pay, etc. I don't see why teaching should be any different.

Please, by all means suggest ways to improve an evaluation system - pre and post testing, blinding peer reviews, broader measures of student achievement, etc. - but don't try to imply that evaluating teachers is either impossible or a bad idea.

[RandBlade]

Well said Hazir. Incidentally if you follow the logic of opposing a one-size-fits-all approach to its logical conclusion then it is totally meaningless and irrelevant to come up with a "fair and reliable" way of measuring performance. There is no objective fair and reliable way to measure my industry either but who cares, since the state isn't involved it isn't necessary to come up with one either. I either impress my customers (with whatever varied matrix of unique desires they have) or I don't.

So impress your customers. In this case, if the funding largely follows the pupil, that would be the parents. No need to come up with a fair and reliable metric, just do that. The state can then have abstract and potentially unfair targets that suit political interests - eg greatly improving standards in a poorly performing area, being a centre of excellence, taking on the toughest pupils and so on and so forth for bonuses. If they're not fair, then boo hoo, get over yourself.

If the school is freed from the shackles of a bureaucratic state then it too has no need to measure "fair and reliable" objective performance matrices. Free the Head Master/Governors etc to have more flexibility with the funding and provide reward funding if appropriate to whomever they deem worthy. Based on whatever metrics they deem worthy. Are you that bureaucratic that you think no colleague ever deserves a reward unless all can get it because it may not be objectively fair?

Life's not fair and if your attitude is that we can't do anything at all because it can't be objectively fair and reliable then that's a terrible attitude to pass on to kids. We do the best we can with the tools we have.