The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools • Hacker News Board

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#51

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 4:49 PM UTC

JediWing wrote: post #48

ThomPete wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with a kid in a charter school (Success Academy) I have to disagree with the very premise for how you discuss them. Some charter schools is a response to the problem of amongst other issues, a way too strong teachers union and it's inability to develop contemporary learning environments for children. In California teachers union have in their agreement that they can't get replaced by new technology. The hi…

> Some charter schools is a response to the problem of amongst other issues, a way too strong teachers union and it's inability to develop contemporary learning environments for children. --------------------------- What are some things that Charter schools allow teachers to do (to develop a contemporary learning environment) that teachers' unions prevent in public schools? (and not other factors like budget constrai…

One of the primary things is they allow them to get fired to avoid lemon teachers.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599005-reforme...

In California the teachers union even have a clause that prevents their teachers from getting fired because of technological advance in the class room.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#52

Post by exelius » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #13

exelius wrote: post #7

This is a good thing for the country; the education provided by these schools is often on par with sources like Kahn Academy and Coursera -- at a much higher price. It seemed like many for-profit colleges are simply a way for "schools" to collect federally guaranteed loans that the students then have to pay back. The student assumes all of the risk. The other side of this industry are charter schools. These are for-p…

As someone with a kid in a charter school (Success Academy) I have to disagree with the very premise for how you discuss them. Some charter schools is a response to the problem of amongst other issues, a way too strong teachers union and it's inability to develop contemporary learning environments for children. In California teachers union have in their agreement that they can't get replaced by new technology. The hi…

Right; I don't think all charter schools are bad. But the way the system is implemented in many states, there is no way to know what the quality of a school actually is. The way it's funded causes a disproportionate drop in available resources for students who aren't in charter schools, which stresses an already broken system to a level that endangers students safety.

Private schools are and have always been an option if you don't like the level of education provided by your local district. If we feel we're not getting our money's worth from our public schools, that's fine -- but fix the public schools, don't divert the money elsewhere. Schools don't react to competitive pressures, so all that causing competition for state funding is going to do is decrease quality.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#53

Post by bko » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #13

exelius wrote: post #7

This is a good thing for the country; the education provided by these schools is often on par with sources like Kahn Academy and Coursera -- at a much higher price. It seemed like many for-profit colleges are simply a way for "schools" to collect federally guaranteed loans that the students then have to pay back. The student assumes all of the risk. The other side of this industry are charter schools. These are for-p…

As someone with a kid in a charter school (Success Academy) I have to disagree with the very premise for how you discuss them. Some charter schools is a response to the problem of amongst other issues, a way too strong teachers union and it's inability to develop contemporary learning environments for children. In California teachers union have in their agreement that they can't get replaced by new technology. The hi…

I think the real benefit of charter schools is consumer choice. You get to chose what school to send your children to. It's a very personal choice as to what you teach your children and how you raise them. Forcing children into one school due to the accident of geography is an injustice that unfortunately mostly impacts the most marginal people in society.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#54

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:09 PM UTC

exelius wrote: post #52

ThomPete wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone with a kid in a charter school (Success Academy) I have to disagree with the very premise for how you discuss them. Some charter schools is a response to the problem of amongst other issues, a way too strong teachers union and it's inability to develop contemporary learning environments for children. In California teachers union have in their agreement that they can't get replaced by new technology. The hi…

Right; I don't think all charter schools are bad. But the way the system is implemented in many states, there is no way to know what the quality of a school actually is. The way it's funded causes a disproportionate drop in available resources for students who aren't in charter schools, which stresses an already broken system to a level that endangers students safety. Private schools are and have always been an optio…

I don't buy the premise that they are somehow stressing an already broken system. Again 32 to students in every class. We aren't talking about small classes here we aren't talking luxurious schools. And then on top of that the positive influence it has one socially challenged areas.

There is a world of difference between a public school in Tribecca and one in Harlem. To be able to attend the one in Tribecca you need to live in Tribecca, you have to be zoned.

Success Academy have a lottery which means kids from harlem, bronx, tribecca, williamsburg all will attend the same school regardless of where they live.

What you are claiming about charter schools are many many times worse in public school system where you get a lot of lousy education and very strong teachers unions on top of it.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#55

Post by dalke » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #21

dalke wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are presenting a fake contrast. When I was in public schools, there was a lot of differentiation in education, and students definitely weren't taught all the same, including different levels (eg, AP vs. non AP history), different tracks (eg, extra courses for those interested in practical arts, or interested in programming, for a career), and special support for students with more specific needs, incl…

No fake contrast. I am responding to the OP who seem to want charter schools to go away based on a claim that they are somehow bad. Success Academy was started because the public school system failed to educate kids in Harlem. The philosophy have since then been copied at other schools with success my son is in Williamsburg. This isn't only about the curriculum but about the very approach to teaching the kids AND the…

Which OP is that? You responded to comments from two accounts, which said:

galby: "there are some truly awful charters out there"

exelius: "To be fair, not all charter schools are for-profit, and there are good charter schools and bad ones. But the entire system stinks; it cuts funding to struggling districts, leaving them in a perpetual budget crisis."

Neither say charter schools are categorically bad. Exelius's point is that the funding system to support charter schools is what stinks.

Your illustration has no historical basis. You are viewing history through rose-colored glasses.

I'll demonstrate with a classic, the 1955 book "Why Johnny Can't Read: And What You Can Do about It". This placed the blame on teachers and the school pedagogy for poor childhood literacy rates, not the students. Parents reacted to that by pushing for policy changes. That book reverberated for decades. At https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qtZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ORME... you can see:

> Since then, other arguments [besides teachers 'simply using the wrong techniques'] have cropped up. Those who sympathize with teachers blame overly-defensive administrations and boards of education. Still others say parents are responsible for having abdicated social duties to the schools, transforming them from educational institutions into huge day care centers.

Sound like a familiar discussion?

Here's an example of a letter to the editor from 1976, https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=VdYeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nVYE... , where a teacher places the blame on school boards for not letting the teachers apply real discipline to the "hoodlums" who get to pass because of "social promotions." This teacher doesn't think the students are getting any discipline from their parents over poor grades.

This Ann Landers humor piece from 1984 reflects the idea that the students are doing poorly because the parents don't care; both parent and child veg in front of the TV: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zbUfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=htcE...

My comment here is surely no strong proof, only suggestive that you may need to research the history which brought us movies like "Blackboard Jungle".

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#56

Post by randcraw » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #32

randcraw wrote: post #28

IMHO, a better strategy for government would be to encourage community colleges to do more, especially: 1) to emphasize skills that are in demand locally, in the community where the school serves, and 2) to provide instruction for more advanced subjects as part of professional continuing education. Of course, they'll need more funds to do this, as badly cash strapped as they are today. For example, I'd dearly like to…

Sounds like what you really want is more decentralized education networks, i.e. democratic free (as in freedom) schools. There's already several of these slowly emerging across the U.S., and indeed carry the advantages of lecturing on all sorts of niche subjects without a formal bureaucracy and instead based on principles of self-governance with a coop-like structure. They're exceptionally adept at serving local comm…

Yes, I think the accreditation process probably should be central to any revisions/extensions of the current college system. That may have been the achilles heel of for-profit schools -- the lack of accreditation and their disinterest in delivering a product that must live up to recognized academic standards.

Any entity or means that delivers a high quality education, and especially does so affordably, works for me. Ideally such accreditation would work to improve (or expand) the reputation of community college themselves. Too many provide a second rate experience, (probably due to their often demanding less from the student than the better four year schools do).

If CCs were to offer some sort of degree beyond the Associate's by augmenting the existing CC workload (perhaps with courses and material arising from groups like Western Governors or even Kahn or Udacity) that met the standard of a good accredited university, that would be useful to many and a good start toward customizing their offerings while assuring academic repute and respectability.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#57

Post by mratzloff » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:31 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #36

mratzloff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You combined two very important points in #3. For instance, how often do charter schools enroll special education students?

Are Charter Schools Required to Provide Services to Students with Disabilities? Yes. The responsibility to make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to all students with disabilities applies to ALL public schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).9 Charter schools are public schools; therefore, they bear the same responsibility. Who is actually responsible for ensuring that…

Dig deeper and you will find that while this is the law, it is not necessarily reality. Hence why I structured the question the way I did rather than focusing on the legal requirement.

A new government report shows that charter schools are not enrolling as high a portion of special-education students as traditional public schools, despite federal laws mandating that publicly financed schools run by private entities take almost every disabled student seeking to enroll.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023033792045774770...

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#58

Post by specialist » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #42

nmrm2 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 is crucially important -- and the religion thing is really unimportant compared to the larger problem. Charter schools, in many states, occupy the absurd position of being able to claim that they out-perform local schools while selecting or quasi-selecting their student population and still not actually participating -- at all -- in the standardized testing that justified their existence in the first place.

Again this is simply wrong. Success Academy one of the best performing schools have a lottery so there is no way to get your kids into that school otherwise. Also public schools in NY are zoned so you have to live the right place to get your kid into the right school.

I'm glad that Success Academy is serving your children so well. Please understand they are not the norm.

I attended the best public schools in the county. Consistently listed in the top 10 nationally. My former public high school is effectively a private school. Just a few miles away are some of the worst performing schools in my state. Elsewhere, most schools are somewhere in the middle.

Similarly, some charters are above average, many are terrible, most are somewhere in between.

Overall, charter schools performance is no different than public schools.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#59

Post by dalke » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:54 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #23

dalke wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are presenting a fake contrast. When I was in public schools, there was a lot of differentiation in education, and students definitely weren't taught all the same, including different levels (eg, AP vs. non AP history), different tracks (eg, extra courses for those interested in practical arts, or interested in programming, for a career), and special support for students with more specific needs, incl…

In my district ~20 years ago "mainstreaming" and "well-rounded" were the buzzwords of the day. That meant, aside from a few honors and AP courses, everyone went through more-or-less the same path in high school. I had 28 classes over four years; 20 were proscribed by the general graduation requirements. There was little wiggle room for "tracks"; those boiled down to "Do I take four years of math and science or just t…

"Mainstreaming", which dates became a buzzword around 1980, refers to putting special needs in the same classes as other students. It does not generally mean that everyone was on the same track. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstreaming_%28education%29

For example, this 1995 article describes how a school for the blind was closing because of the mainstreaming of blind students. https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_DRQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pVUD... . Here's a recent example of a teacher using the term 'mainstreaming', http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2015/10/pa-shutting-down-... , and doing so only in the context of special ed.

Either your school district was using its own definition, or you misunderstood the context.

"Well-rounded education" was a bigger buzzword in the 1940s and 1950s. See https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=well-rounded+e... . It's part of the American education system that students are required to take course in a diverse set of subjects. It doesn't require that everyone take the same classes.

That clarification aside, and assuming I'm completely wrong, how does a charter system, which presumably has the same general graduation requirements, change things?

Anything more about your circumstances requires understanding more about your district. Eg, was everyone in the same level of math, so that no one (or everyone) took calculus by the time they graduated? Were there only 25 students in the class? Did everyone take the same foreign language course?

Wow! My school has changed. There's a "Drafting / Illustrative Design Technology" track, a "Fashion Design" track, which includes "Fashion Marketing Management", an "Arts, A/V Technology & Communications" cluster, and more http://www.coralgablescavaliers.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uRE... .

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#60

Post by exelius » Wed, Oct 28, 2015, 5:55 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #54

exelius wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right; I don't think all charter schools are bad. But the way the system is implemented in many states, there is no way to know what the quality of a school actually is. The way it's funded causes a disproportionate drop in available resources for students who aren't in charter schools, which stresses an already broken system to a level that endangers students safety. Private schools are and have always been an optio…

I don't buy the premise that they are somehow stressing an already broken system. Again 32 to students in every class. We aren't talking about small classes here we aren't talking luxurious schools. And then on top of that the positive influence it has one socially challenged areas. There is a world of difference between a public school in Tribecca and one in Harlem. To be able to attend the one in Tribecca you need…

Let's say a public school has grades K-5 with 2 classrooms of 32 students per grade. That's 12 classrooms, for a total of 384 students. Let's also assume that school gets $6000 per year, per student (total of $2.3 million). The budget is already threadbare, so there aren't many places left to cut.

Now let's say you take away 10% of the students from that school, such that you now have 29 students in each class. The school's budget is now $2 million, but they haven't shed any costs: they still have the same number of teachers, the same buildings to maintain, etc. So they have to get creative with their budget, which is how you end up with crappy local schools that don't have arts classes, a school nurse, or enough books to go around. This causes more students to flee to the charter school system, making the problem worse and creating situations where kids are frequently unsupervised. Worse, these schools are often forced to take on students with no additional funding in the event a charter school goes bankrupt (which happens to 1-2 charter schools a year in most major cities).

I'm sure my take on this issue would be different if I had kids, and the teacher's unions are part of the problem. But we should fix the unions and the schools, not provide an unregulated system where government money is funneled into private businesses with little to no oversight.