Not exact matches
It's about the fact that most
charter schools aren't unionized, and that more
often than not they work - embarrassing the unionists.
The film finds dramatic visuals, an invaluable and
often challenging part of any documentary, for its conclusion, as the profiled families attend public lotteries where they hope to beat the long odds of getting into a high - performing
charter school whose applicants may outnumber its vacancies by more
than ten times.
This is also not surprising, given that teacher hiring in
charter schools is
often less tightly regulated
than it is in the district sector.
Charters appear to provide fewer extracurricular activities
than either private or district schools, perhaps because they are newer and
often have less - lavish facilities and limited space for playgrounds and sports activities.
State laws
often bog
charter conversions down with excess baggage, such as keeping the school under the district's collective bargaining agreement, or requiring that it have a higher percentage of certified teachers
than other
charters.
These early deficits are
often partially offset by start - up grants from the federal
Charter School Program and the Walton Family Foundation, which together typically amount to more
than $ 500,000 per school, spread out over several years.
As blended learning has grown within district schools, it's
often been a bit more ad hoc — a class here, one subject there —
than in many
charters in which blended learning has become a core part of the school's operations.
Because of this talk and his subsequent if short - lived advocacy, Shanker is
often credited with conceiving the very concept of
charters, although he drew on work published more
than a decade earlier.
The heart of the piece is the claim that Detroit has experienced a dramatic increase in
charter schools, but those new schools are no better or
often worse
than the traditional public schools.
The Times editors fault DeVos for supposedly supporting «legislative changes that have reduced oversight and accountability» for
charter schools — a charge that treads a thin line between exaggeration and falsehood — and laments that DeVos wants to expand school choice in Detroit, where supposedly «
charter schools
often perform no better
than traditional schools, and sometimes worse» [links in the original].
In fact, they cite with contempt the fact that in some instances «teachers, students, and parents successfully lobby to keep their
charter school open» when authorizers attempt to shut them down,
often for political rather
than academic reasons.
Otherwise, the classifications could reflect differences in how
often the
charter schools place students in these programs rather
than their students» traits.
For instance, numerous surveys have found that students and parents who transferred from district schools to
charter schools thought the
charters were safer, friendlier, and more effective,
often by margins of more
than 50 percent (see Figure 1).
This research does not show that private or
charter schools are always more effective
than district schools in raising student performance on standardized tests — the indicator that is
often put forth as a measure of a school's success.
But today,
charter school teachers
often have even less voice
than teachers in district public schools.
They perceive
charters to be smaller, safer, friendlier, and, more
often than not, a better place to learn.
Interviews with more
than 400
charter school operators from coast to coast have revealed widespread localized combat — what one administrator called «bureaucratic sand» that is
often hurled in the faces of
charter schools.
What is not
often debated is that
charter schools, which are independently run but publicly funded, generally receive less public funding per student
than district - run schools.
While their fees are
often lower
than other private and parochial schools in their communities, they are not free, unlike
charter and public schools, and financial assistance is not widely available, unlike traditional private schools.
Charter schools are
often forced to operate at a much lower funding level
than traditional public schools, facing an
Charter schools are
often forced to operate at a much lower funding level
than traditional public schools, facing an average disparity in per - pupil funding of 29 percent in metropolitan areas.
Gary Naeyaert, executive director of the Great Lakes Education Project, said
charter schools are
often a better academic option for students
than the conventional school district they came from.
The truth is, we have lost the change - forest for the choice - trees, too
often pushing
charters and vouchers as an end in and of themselves rather
than a means to spur innovation and opportunity and ultimately deliver on the promise of a great education for all children.
The project grew out of a practical problem we encountered when studying big city school systems: in many cities, the public school «system» is actually a collection of systems: school districts (
often more
than one),
charter schools, and even state agencies.
As Matthew Ladner has shown, Arizona parents voting with their feet closed down low - performing
charter schools earlier and more
often than state regulators:
The policy report also finds that
charter school teachers earn 20 percent less
than public district school teachers while their executives (
often the
charter holders) earn on average 50 percent more
than their counterparts in similarly - sized public school districts.
Charter schools are run by private corporations that are
often more interested in generating profits
than in empowering parents.
Now that the Trump administration has made school choice a cornerstone of its education policy, we thought it would be worth exploring how
charter schools work, who runs them, how they're funded and whether they work better
than the traditional public schools they're
often competing against.
The
charter schools model offers a community a way to create a school that
often has lower operating costs
than traditional schools — particularly for employee compensation — and greater flexibility in class offerings, all funded with federal start - up money and a large portion of the annual per - pupil payment from the state for public school students.
Charter schools
often receive less money
than other public schools, usually don't get facility financing, and the cost of benefits keeps rising.
Too
often charter schools, like other public schools, lack the specialized knowledge to know how to serve students with disabilities, especially severe disabilities, and to meet their needs directly, rather
than serving them through a private placement outside of the school.
Although districts and
charter schools are more
often cast more as adversaries
than collaborators, there are a few outposts challenging that dynamic.
While
charter school advocates say the practice
often reflects no more
than smart budgeting, some educators and others question whether the schools receive the proper oversight to ensure that religious groups are not benefiting from taxpayer dollars intended for public school students — or that faith - based instruction is not entering those classrooms.
«The first national comparison of test scores among children in
charter schools and regular public schools shows
charter school students
often doing worse
than comparable students in regular public schools,» read the opening sentence.
On measures widely used to judge all public schools, such as state test scores and graduation rates, virtual schools —
often run as
charter schools — tend to perform worse
than their brick - and - mortar counterparts.
The federation's review of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress,
often called «the nation's report card,» found that
charter - school students» average scores were lower in math and reading in the fourth and eighth grades
than the nationwide public - school averages.
First: The Times claims that the NAEP - based comparison «shows
charter school students
often doing worse
than comparable students in regular public schools.»
More
often than not, these
charter schools in predominantly minority neighborhoods are higher - performing
than their traditional counterparts.
The addition of
charter schools in high - performing suburbs
often creates more instability
than reform.
Surveys show that parents rate their
charter schools as better
than their previous traditional public schools,
often by 50 percent margins.
At the same time, parents in those same cities
often hear claims by many
charter schools that their students score two or three times higher
than their district school counterparts.
The
charters,
often billed by proponents as a superior alternative to traditional schools, were seven times more likely
than regular schools to get an F in the appraisal of the state's elementary and middle schools.
Charters» grade levels, programs and demographics are
often different
than public schools».
For example,
charter schools are publicly funded but are much more independent
than traditional public schools, and far more
often than not, they do a better job of educating the poor.
That more
than 80 percent of those closures are for reasons other
than academic performance raises concerns — among
charter advocates and opponents alike — that authorizers are not holding poorly performing
charters accountable for student learning; however, Consoletti argues that financial and operational problems
often appear before academic data can be gathered.
A series of studies from CREDO at Stanford University have found that in the aggregate
charter schools don't perform better
than traditional public schools but
often outperform them in urban areas.
Here are a few examples: the for - profit company will install their own handpicked boards that in turn hire the company for «management,» and these fees routinely cost up to 15 % of the school's FTE; the for - profit company will demand that parents purchase supplies directly from the school itself, which is
often another LLC that charges exorbitant rates for the basics; in many cases, the biggest part of the scam is one LLC (e.g. Red Apple Development, the construction arm of
Charter Schools USA) will purchase land to build the school on and then turn around and charge the school (read: taxpayers) rent that is substantially higher
than the going rate / property value, sometimes as high as a million dollars a year.
However, the distinction between for - profit and nonprofit is
often messier
than groups like NAPCS readily admit: Nonprofit
charters can still hire for - profit management companies to run their schools.
The initial vetting is arguably more important, because closing down underperforming
charters is
often easier to recommend
than to accomplish.
As described in yesterday's Journal Sentinel, in his new book, UW - Oshkosh Professor Michael Ford describes a system in which public schools, private schools, and
charter schools all compete for the same students and resources with what
often seems like more concern for increasing their share of enrollment
than for the overall outcomes achieved by students.