Sentences with phrase «worse than charter schools»

So, to even make that argument you're admitting that public schools are worse than Charter schools, and will be for the forseeable future.

Not exact matches

The fight over control of the Senate came into relief this month when a prominent political donor and charter school benefactor, Dan Loeb, wrote on Facebook that Stewart - Cousins has been worse for people of color than the Ku Klux Klan.

Loeb in a since - deleted Facebook post wrote Stewart - Cousins has been worse for people of color than the Ku Klux Klan due to her stance on charter schools.

The week concluded for New York politics with a racially charged jolt: A prominent and prolific campaign donor and benefactor of charter schools in since - deleted Facebook suggested the state's black Senate minority leader had been worse for people of color than the Ku Klux Klan.

But though 80 percent of the charters in her home state perform worse than traditional public schools, DeVos — a billionaire whose family has also opposed workers» rights, gay marriage and has contributed heavily to a variety of other right - wing causes — has led the way in resisting any attempts to regulate or improve Michigan charter performance.

Charter school advocate Dan Loeb was blasted earlier this year for saying a state senate Democratic leader was worse than the KKK

The New York education sector has had its own controversy over race in the past week: Daniel Loeb, a political donor and chairman of the board of directors of Success Academy, the state's largest charter school network, said in a since - deleted Facebook post that state Sen. Andrea Stewart - Cousins, who is black, was worse for racial minorities than «anyone who has ever donned a hood,» because of her support of teachers» unions.

The charters have been used for tax breaks by hedge - fund operators; worse yet, he continued, is that they're siphoning away children in poorer neighborhoods whose parents are aware enough to seek something better for them than their local schools, in what he called «a cannibalization of our public - school system... We need to fully fund our schools.»

«Our findings reveal that, across all grades and subjects, students in online charter schools perform worse on standardized assessments and are significantly less likely to pass Ohio's test for high school graduation than their peers in traditional charter and traditional public schools,» said McEachin.

Yes, charter schools on the whole perform no better or worse than existing public schools, but they've allowed educators to experiment with new approaches to problem solving.

The results from this study showed a number of charters (17 %) doing significantly better (at the 95 % level) than the traditional public schools that fed the charters, but there was an even larger group of charters (37 %) doing significantly worse in terms of reading and math.

Harris instead offers two potential alternatives: 1) the improved public / charter school performance in New Orleans made the performance of the private sector look relatively worse; and 2) the curriculum at most private schools may not have been aligned to the state test, so the poor performance merely reflects that lack of alignment rather than poor performance.

It showed that among the 16 states studied, there was wide variation in charter quality, and that while lots of charters were doing well, lots were doing worse than local district schools.

In 2009, CREDO reported that charter students performed somewhat worse in reading and substantially worse in math than their district school counterparts.

Another study, by Michigan's Mackinac Center for Public Policy, found positive, but by their admission «not great,» results: Detroit charter high schools performed somewhat better than predicted based on their socioeconomic makeup, while Detroit Public Schools performed worse than preschools performed somewhat better than predicted based on their socioeconomic makeup, while Detroit Public Schools performed worse than preSchools performed worse than predicted.

In Arizona, a state that has always had charter schools that draw middle - class students, there is evidence that, on average at least, charters are not doing any better at raising student achievement than district schools; outside of urban areas, they appear to do a bit worse.

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].

(See Table 7 on p. 44) To claim that half the charters perform the same or worse than traditional public schools is a grotesque distortion of the study's findings.

Of course I was predisposed in that direction because I'm a huge admirer of Eva Moskowitz's Success Academy charter schools — more than 40 of them now, in four boroughs of New York City — which are knocking the top off state test scores and providing terrific educational alternatives for thousands of youngsters, mostly poor and minority, who would otherwise be stuck in some of the country's worst urban schools.

It alleges that a review of the research on charter schools leads to the conclusions that, overall, charter schools: 1) fail to raise student achievement more than traditional district schools do; 2) aren't innovative and don't pass innovations along to district schools; 3) exacerbate the racial and ethnic isolation of students; 4) provide a worse environment for teachers than district schools; and 5) spend more on administration and less on instruction than public schools.

As the article puts it: «But half the charters perform only as well, or worse than, Detroit's traditional public schools.»

Sixty percent of the charter schools studied performed worse than their traditional public school counterparts.

Like other skeptics, Carter seized on a 2010 report from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes that portrayed many charter schools as doing no better, and indeed sometimes worse, than traditional schools nationwide.

The study found that only 1 % of Detroit's charters performs significantly worse than the traditional public schools in reading and only 7 % in math.

And on the specific claim the article makes that «half the charters perform only as well, or worse than, Detroit's traditional public schools» this is what the Stanford study has to say: «In reading, 47 percent of charter schools perform significantly better than their traditional public school market, which is more positive than the 35 % for Michigan charter schools as a whole.

[1] For a long time, the debate over charter schools has revolved around the simplistic question of whether they are better or worse than traditional public schools.

On average, charter schools in Arizona do no better, and sometimes worse, than the traditional public schools.

Known as the CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation's five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school.

47 % of charter schools serving middle class students perform worse than similar schools.

But some note that many charters perform the same as or worse than traditional public schools.

This summer, a Stanford University study estimated students in 37 percent of the nation's charter schools have performed worse on state standardized tests than their peers in typical public - school districts.

Wood pointed to research showing that many charters perform no better than regular public schools, and some perform worse.

A 2009 Stanford University report, lauded as most authoritative research yet on the issue, concluded that 17 percent of the charter schools studied outperform public schools and 37 percent «deliver results that are significantly worse» than those expected of traditional public schools.

On average, a new federal study shows, charter schools are no better and in some cases worse than regular public schools, but KIPP's test scores show it to be a glaring exception to that general rule.

So when the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the nation's second - largest teachers» union, published a study in August 2004 that found students at charter schools performing worse than their peers at traditional public schools, more than a few hopes were dashed.

Much political capital has been made of a 2009 study of 16 states that found that only 17 % of charter schools were better than public schools, 37 % were worse and the rest were about the same.

Ohio, where most charters are worse than the traditional schools, gained a reputation as the «Wild West» of charter schools because it exercised almost no oversight.

A Stanford study, however, found that 83 percent of the time charter schools perform the same or worse than their public school counterparts.

The WBD movie is produced by the same company that produced the controversial documentary «Waiting for Superman,» which put teachers in a very bad light and presented false and misleading information about charter schools, which overall have not had any better track record in the US than regular schools.

There's no reason to believe charter schools in general are inherently better — or worse — than their conventional counter-parts.

Anyone who views the strings attached to the supposedly increased dollars will immediately see that Pryor, with Malloy and Jepsen to help him, is cynically using the inequities in order to push his agenda of privatizing and increasing the number of charter schools — which are not better than well - resourced, well - staffed (no TFA, please) public schools — indeed, with their shaming rituals, bare - bones curriculum, and newbie teachers, they are much worse.

Harlem Success Academy is «protested more than any other charter school in this city — and there are some bad charter schools.

A 2009 study from Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that nearly one in five charters performed better than public schools, but 37 percent performed worse.

Last fall, multiple research studies found that virtual charter schools yield significantly worse academic results than traditional public schools.

Five years ago, one group of researchers found that charter school students across Chicago and the whole state of Florida scored slightly worse on math tests than their public high school counterparts.

So, roughly one in five or one in six Philadelphia charter schools are doing worse than the district - run schools.

And yet, «results,» or rather, academic improvement, act more like a fig leaf, especially in light of numerous recent studies that show charter schools, taken on the whole, actually do a worse job of educating students than regular public schools.

The Spending Blind report also underscored the CREDO findings: The education offered at three fourths of the charters was worse than that provided at nearby district schools.

The study of charter schools in 15 states and the District of Columbia found that, nationally, only 17 % of charter schools do better academically than their traditional counterparts, and more than a third «deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student [s] would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.»