school vouchers

[Gulo Blue]

Skimming abstracts, it looks like charter schools perform on average, nearly the same as public schools, but there's great variation between schools. Some states are doing better than others and charter schools do more for poor students while rich students would be better off in public schools. One way to interpret this would be to expect the charlatans MC is talking about to be drawn to wealthier communities.


http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Maul_CREDO-2013.pdf
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/577/
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510573
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17332

 

[Michchamp]

I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing. Schools were required to hire special ed teachers, speech therapists, etc. because of changes to laws like the ADA. some of that increase is due to that. we've come a long way from the days of a one-room schoolhouse taught by a single schoolmarm.

Is the per capita tax burden due to increased teacher staffing really that burdensome? In the case of parents of special needs children certainly not... they'd otherwise be forced to hire their own specialists, or pay for alternative schooling. $1.4 billion per year from '92 to '09... compared to some of the real insane boondoggles we pay for at the federal level. that's a problem!?!?

and even if there are some unnecessary staffing... the solution is to take money away from the local public school district and give it to whatever former mayoral aide, or mayoral brother-in-law is savvy enough to realize he can make a quick buck by opening a "charter school"?

 

[Michchamp]

Skimming abstracts, it looks like charter schools perform on average, nearly the same as public schools, but there's great variation between schools. Some states are doing better than others and charter schools do more for poor students while rich students would be better off in public schools. One way to interpret this would be to expect the charlatans MC is talking about to be drawn to wealthier communities.


http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Maul_CREDO-2013.pdf
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/577/
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510573
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17332

In Chicago, it's more complicated. Charters apparently made up the middle ranks, outperforming CPS schools located in rougher parts of the city. But that also may have more to do with the fact that Charter schools can kick kids out; the CPS schools have to take in everyone in the neighborhood, from gangbangers to hardened teenage criminals.

There are 541 elementary schools in Chicago. Based on the composite ISAT scores for 2011?the last full set available?none of the top ten are charters. None of the top 20, 30, or 40 either.


In fact, you've got to go to 41 to find a charter. ... Most of the 49 charters on the list are clustered near the great middle, alongside most of their unionized neighborhood schools.
​

I'm familiar with this debate in Chicago. it's become increasingly contentious, and it's not a BS two party thing either; Rahm Emanuel, and a lot of Obama allies were anti-CPS, pro-charter school advocates, like Arne Duncan when he was here. When they're screwing the people, politicians are always plenty bi-partisan...

Undermining their argument... the local alternative newspaper pointed out that all the powerful politicians in the city advocating for charter schools (Emanuel, current GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, Obama, etc.) made sure to pull strings to get their kids in the best schools in the city, which were all CPS... NOT CHARTER schools (!!!) and taught by unionized staff. They know the reality of the situation, even if the saps in the public that buy into their rhetoric don't.

 

[byco42]

I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing. Schools were required to hire special ed teachers, speech therapists, etc. because of changes to laws like the ADA. some of that increase is due to that. we've come a long way from the days of a one-room schoolhouse taught by a single schoolmarm.

The study indicates that the split between admin and the instructional staff that are classified as "non-teachers" is 46%/47%.

Is the per capita tax burden due to increased teacher staffing really that burdensome?

Actually, yes, because it's I misread the report. The $24B is annual savings. The formula was $40,000 per employee multiplied by the number of additional admin and non-teaching personnel that exceeded the proportional student growth.

what would public schools in the United States have been able to save (in 2009) if they had limited changes in the employment of administrators and other non-teaching personnel to the changes in their student populations?​

$40,000 x 606,000 (admin and non-teachers that exceeded increase/decrease rate of students in 2009) = $24,000,000,000

In the case of parents of special needs children certainly not... they'd otherwise be forced to hire their own specialists, or pay for alternative schooling. $1.4 billion per year from '92 to '09... compared to some of the real insane boondoggles we pay for at the federal level. that's a problem!?!?

Kind of minimizes this rebuttal, now that we know it's more like $24 billion a year. (That's still pocket change to the Feds), but we need to remember that its local and state sources that fund the lion's share of public schools.

and even if there are some unnecessary staffing... the solution is to take money away from the local public school district and give it to whatever former mayoral aide, or mayoral brother-in-law is savvy enough to realize he can make a quick buck by opening a "charter school"?

The solution is to practice more prudent hiring practices if only by pacing the hiring of admin and non-teachers proportionally to student population. In 21 states, admin and non-teachers outnumber teachers. That's fantastic. But not wasteful, apparently.

 

[Michchamp]

Hmmm, well that is an interesting point: too many administrators.

Not sure of the solution, and that "top heavy organizational structure" is affecting a lot of sectors of the economy right now. Hospital administration, university administration, and even some corporations are very top heavy. It's where a lot of expenditure seems to be going.

 

[byco42]

Hmmm, well that is an interesting point: too many administrators.

Not sure of the solution, and that "top heavy organizational structure" is affecting a lot of sectors of the economy right now. Hospital administration, university administration, and even some corporations are very top heavy. It's where a lot of expenditure seems to be going.

People need to keep track of the people keeping track.

 

[tinselwolverine]

People need to keep track of the people keeping track.

But who is going to keep track of the people keeping track of the people keeping track?

And then, who is going to keep track of those people?

 

[Gulo Blue]

But who is going to keep track of the people keeping track of the people keeping track?

And then, who is going to keep track of those people?

Obviously these guys:

 

[Michchamp]

keep your stupid comic book crap off the politics board.

 

[byco42]

But who is going to keep track of the people keeping track of the people keeping track?

And then, who is going to keep track of those people?

Obviously some people very good at tracking.