Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#81

Post by ThomPete »

drumdance wrote: post #72
dublinben wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every single student in that lottery had to be entered by a parent concerned about their education. That already presents a selection bias that will deliver better testing results than the entire student population.

My recollection from Freakonomics is they found that the children who lose the lottery still do as well as those who get in. The differentiating factor seems to be parents who care enough to enter the lottery in the first place. Their research was based on magnet schools in Chicago in the nineties. I don't know how well that model correlates with Success Academy.

It's I believe the Hawtorne Effect I believe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#82

Post by ThomPete »

dalke wrote: post #59
vonmoltke wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/news…

The number one reason is that they can fire bad teachers and require quite a lot from those they hire because they are not in the union.

You are assuming it's about the curriculum it's not. It's about the environment, the parent participation etc.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#83

Post by ThomPete »

nmrm2 wrote: post #74
ThomPete wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please argue against things I have said instead of things I never said. I never said that charter schools was performing better I was saying that my SONS school was performing better despite being a lottery. If we can't at least represent each others claims properly I do not wish to partake in this discussion. No it's not immaterial whether someone can put their kids to a public school in Tribecca vs. Harlem.

> I never said that charter schools was performing better I was saying that my SONS school was performing better despite being a lottery. Your comment started with "Again this is simply wrong", without specifying "this". I assume you were refering to: "[charters are] selecting or quasi-selecting their student population". So, my interpretation of your claim: "Charter schools that use lotteries out-perform, which mean…

You whole argument is based on a completely absurd premise.

That you are right because you can claim that parents who are interested in their childs educations and apply to charter schools is the selection bias.

But this is not what this discussion is about. The claim being made was that charter school had an advantage because they got to pick the best kids and leave the rest for the public school system.

It doesn't and so the selection bias you keep insisting exist is really nothing compared to the one that exist in the public system where you are completely depending on how rich your parents are so they can live the right place and you are zoned for that.

Thats what parents do btw. Move to the good school districts. Those who can afford it. To any extent a lottery is selection bias it's simply not relevant or interesting for the premise of this discussion which is that the charter schools had an advantage.

They don't. Public schools in rich neighborhoods however do.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#85

Post by hugh4 »

serge2k wrote: post #76
hugh4 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were a CEO brought in to fix a failing company, would your first instinct be to say "The employees must suck! We need to fire all the employees and replace them with higher-paid ones!"? Or would you say "I bet these employees are poorly managed. I'm sure they can work more effectively if we change aspects of the process." Here's an idea that doesn't cost any money: segregate students by ability so that kids ca…

> Here's an idea that doesn't cost any money: segregate students by ability so that kids can learn at their own pace. 1. Don't see how you can claim that is a zero cost idea. 2. In practice this just becomes the smart kids, normal kids, idiots. Good luck once you get labelled an idiot.

If you are an idiot, it's better to recieve an idiot- appropriate education. Less calculus and Shakespeare and more how to get a steady job, handle your finances, and stay away from trouble.

It would of course suck if you just had a cold on the day of the rest and wound up in the idiot school by accident, you'd need to review performance regularly. Ideally you'd have more than three levels of schooling. Maybe five, you could label them alpha through epsilon.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#86

Post by mratzloff »

ThomPete wrote: post #68
mratzloff wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

There are many things that aren't reality when you dig deeper. Public schools are no different. Again. Trying to make charter schools the bad schools in defence of the public shools is simply absurd.

You're correct, but that's not what I did.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#87

Post by mjevans »

hugh4 wrote: post #85
serge2k wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's an idea that doesn't cost any money: segregate students by ability so that kids can learn at their own pace. 1. Don't see how you can claim that is a zero cost idea. 2. In practice this just becomes the smart kids, normal kids, idiots. Good luck once you get labelled an idiot.

If you are an idiot, it's better to recieve an idiot- appropriate education. Less calculus and Shakespeare and more how to get a steady job, handle your finances, and stay away from trouble. It would of course suck if you just had a cold on the day of the rest and wound up in the idiot school by accident, you'd need to review performance regularly. Ideally you'd have more than three levels of schooling. Maybe five, y…

Next thing you know you'll be encouraging parents to drink more so that the correct ratio of alphas to epsilons happens.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#88

Post by sethammons »

ThomPete wrote: post #41
specialist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a money issue. How does that money get spent? In other words, it's a governance issue. (Also, I believe, but cannot prove, it's also a scale issue. Large districts should be split up. Would give parents more choice.) A buddy was CFO for the local school district. Admin swallows half the budget. Real estate investments are poorly managed. Maintenance has been neglected. Meanwhile, teachers are underpaid, no C…

They are screwed in almost any public school system but not because of money issues. The reason why charter schools work is because parents are often more involved in their kids education. The school simply forces it. For instance: Readling Log. Every day we have to write which book we read with our son and what book(s) he read. Student corrections. The students are measured everyday from Green (no corrections) to ye…

While systemic changes can be put into place that encourage parent involvement, none of the changes you cited requires it. I think there is a high likelihood that involved parents find themselves enrolling children into some charter schools. When you have classes of students whom have involved parents, miraculously the students do better.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#89

Post by ThomPete »

sethammons wrote: post #88
ThomPete wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are screwed in almost any public school system but not because of money issues. The reason why charter schools work is because parents are often more involved in their kids education. The school simply forces it. For instance: Readling Log. Every day we have to write which book we read with our son and what book(s) he read. Student corrections. The students are measured everyday from Green (no corrections) to ye…

While systemic changes can be put into place that encourage parent involvement, none of the changes you cited requires it. I think there is a high likelihood that involved parents find themselves enrolling children into some charter schools. When you have classes of students whom have involved parents, miraculously the students do better.

You know there is a reason why parents who are interested in their childs education chooses charter schools.

But apparently miraculously when SA started in Harlem the parent who cared about their childs education appeared in perfect sync with the charter school. Before that they simply didn't exist.

I have lost track of what this discussion is about anymore. No one is saying that charter schools is the only way to do things. I was reacting to a claim that charter schools had advantages compared to public schools.

There is a very specific reason why the kids spend a long time in school btw but since you are more interested in miracles I will save that for another day.

Re: The Rise and Fall of For-Profit Schools

#90

Post by ThomPete »

mratzloff wrote: post #86
ThomPete wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many things that aren't reality when you dig deeper. Public schools are no different. Again. Trying to make charter schools the bad schools in defence of the public shools is simply absurd.

You're correct, but that's not what I did.

Of course it is. Otherwise your point is trivial. Some schools don't live up to their obligation. No shit.
Post reply on HN