By Mary

November 1, 2006 8:33 AM | Link to this

“charterschoolhater”, I do not think things are as rosy in suburban areas as your October 27 post implies. Families and students in suburban areas need choices as well, and all of us cannot afford private schools and suburban property taxes. Besides private schools are not necessarily a good source of education or good fit for some students.

By Belle Haven alum

October 30, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Several comments directed at one set of standards for public schools,i.e. “highly-qualfied” and another, implied lower standard, for charter schools. The issue w/ this line of thinking is what constitutes “highly-qualified” and its linkage to teacher unions. One of the primary functions of a union is to restrict the labor supply - in this case, teachers - such that pay will increase. And one of the primary methods to restrict supply is standards such as “highly-qualified”. Just because a traditional public school teacher meets the “HQ” standard does not mean that she/he can motivate students to learn. And vice-versa for charter schools. That is, one of the most pressing problems for education, both traditional and charter schools, is how to increase the pool of subject matter experts that are willing to pursue a teaching career. In other words, a balance exists between subject matter strength and pedagogical strength. A more direct, albeit simplistic, analogy: just because one has a driver’s license does NOT make one an expert driver. To the extent that charter schools do not meet the “HQ” standard of traditional schools, it has a lot to do with the overall effort to develop an alternative to the traditional system, the operative word being “alternative”. As I’ve mentioned before, charter schools offer a range of performance - some very good, some very bad, and some in the middle - just as is the case with traditional public schools. However, one of the primary reasons charter schools exist is to provide parents with CHOICE; a very powerful tool in the process known as “competition”. Those who oppose charter schools fundamentally believe that students/parents exist to serve the system, whereas those who support charter schools believe the system exists to serve students/parents.

By Caroline

October 29, 2006 8:52 PM | Link to this

Rick, The problem with your theory of competition is that we are not at an equal playing field. Charter schools are not required to meet the same requirements as public schools. Also, you are assuming that Dayton schools are “really lousy” because there is something wrong with the schools. Why are we blaming the schools when the problem is society—poverty, violence, crime, and drugs. If we moved all of Oakwood’s teachers to Dayton, and all of Dayton’s teachers to Oakwood, do you really think that would cause scores, attendance, suspension rates, etc., to improve? Would Dayton schools then become number 2 in the state?

By Rick

October 29, 2006 5:39 PM | Link to this

Seems like a lot of folks on these boards hate competition. Several have expressed hostility to profits. Sounds like socialists to me. As one poster pointed out, charter schools exist only where the public schools are “really lousy.” Really lousy charter schools go out of business. Really public schools stay in business. (Although the NCLB Act is changing that.)

By Mary

October 28, 2006 9:46 PM | Link to this

teachermom, I agree with some of what you have to say. However, why don’t teachers’unions discuss some of the hard core education issues publicly without constantly bringing up money and pay? Why don’t education groups focus on a quality education for all kids, not just poverty striken and struggling students. I agree more understanding should exist on why some students struggle, not just children in poverty. Why don’t education professionals embrace a value added system? Why don’t education professionals support families that need other options than traditional age grouped classrooms and traditional schools?

By teachermom

October 27, 2006 3:08 PM | Link to this

Keith, I totally agree with you. This is such an injustice to public schools. I am so disgusted that public schools are held to these high standards under NCLB but their money can be diverted to these charter schools who can operate under less strict standards. Nobody bothers to explain to these parents that their teachers may or may not be certified, and that they might not have a teaching degree at all ! Why should they get public school tax money when they don’t have to follow public school requirements ? To ME, that is a PRIVATE SCHOOL, with much lower standards if I might add. It always amazes me, around March for the past few years I’ve been getting “returning students” from these charters schools who enter my class telling me how awful it was there and are in worse academic shape than ever. I have to explain to their parents how far behind they are now and try my best to get them caught up. Throw the word “Academy” behind anything and people are dazzled. I just shake my head and think about what lies ahead. Dave has got it right when he said the Governor and Legislature is to bear the responsibility of educating these children, and if they can’t get it straightened out, then another Governor will do it. Keith, do us all a favor and keep your expertise to yourself. Your charter school observer needs to do what we all did, GET A TEACHING DEGREE and become HIGHLY QUALIFIED ! I get really upset when I hear people rag on DPS teachers. Most people, especially suburban teachers would wet their pants or stroke out doing our jobs. There is little comprehension from the public of the poverty, crime, and disadvantages our students face and how they impact learning. You think all children are going to be at the same educational levels at the same time ? Please ! That will NEVER happen. That does not mean that “Late Bloomers” won’t catch up as adults, or in middle school a student suddenly becomes inspired to read more because she likes a popular author. If you are impressed by “test scores” as an indicator of a “good school” then you are really ignorant. Take the children we get at kindergarden, many who have little or no exposure to books, poor language skills, some even pointing and grunting. At screening, most are below Kdg. level, MANY at skill levels of a 2-3 yr. old. Most living at poverty levels.So what does that tell you ? With lots of catching up to do, by the time they hit third grade we see growth even if some of them are a little behind.Rarely seen by doctors, even less by dentists, our nurses are HEAVILY relied on, we play nurse some ourselves. Our social workers were cut long ago. Students move frequently, are often tired,dirty, hungry, and in shelters. So forgive ME if I don’t think test scores once a year are a fair measure of a “good school,” “good teaching,” or a reason to divert our public school tax dollars to Big Business and their experiments. Teachers I work with went to school to TEACH, have the proper credentials, and pay to maintain that licensure out of their own pockets. It’s insulting that our own government lets this go on and they don’t have to post any kind of standards disclaimer in these charters. Next year NCLB will be revisited. Something has to be done about this garbage. Enough Dayton School bashing. My colleagues and I went to the best colleges in the state. We are ALL HQ and some even have Administrative(Supt.) Licenses and teach evenings at colleges-Master teachers. The hours we put in are endless. New buildings won’t make these children score better.”Pay for Performance” won’t change the disadvantages students come to school with. They are bright with talents and interests, and well-worthy of federal funding that gets yanked from testing. It really hurts sometimes having to defend myself and my co-workers. We are good at what we do, yet we are looked down on for teaching where we are needed the most. What is wrong with this picture ?

By Charterschool Hater

October 27, 2006 9:22 AM | Link to this

Keith, There are no results for Centerville, Oakwood, Vandalia, Northmont, and Kettering charter schools because there are no charter schools there. They only pop up in comunities with real lousy public schools like Dayton. There is choide in those commuities that is acceptable to those parents. You either go to a good public school or a good private one. Parents can afford the private ones. The reason for charter schools in Dayton is Dayton has lousey schools, the private schools are out the pirce range for most parents, and therefore the need for an alternate free charter school. Dayton will continue to have financial problems until they engage in real reform of the education and managerial type. Not reform the buidings. It is sad they refuse to do nothing more than put a bandaid on the problems in the educational house and they must be in denial in the managerial house. Or maybe they have too many administartors who are too entrenched in keeping their overpaid jobs. It is time for fresh blood in Dayton Schools. WIll the DPS School Board wait until the bad administrators have spent us unitl we are broke?

By Mary

October 26, 2006 4:38 PM | Link to this

Keith, my dilemma as a parent and citizen is that I want even better results than Centerville, Oakwood, etc. Even the traditionally “excellent” schools do not meet my expectations of a quality education. In fact, I had to pick and choose like a pig searching for edible mushrooms (or is it truffles?) to get my child through the education system. At least offer parents and students some choices in the matter.

By Keith

October 26, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

The fact is charter, community, private, parochial schools, all have not had to meet the same requirement of public schools. They don’t have to keep students enrolled, whether they’re the disrupters, criminals, absentees, special needs, etc. The other schools not only didn’t have to meet state requirements for testing, the got to pick their students. They should have been doing superlative work. Instead we’ve gotten a political system that panders to the wants of some politicians in Columbus who wish to disable the public schools, or at least cheapen their labor costs by busting the unions and tenure. (Too bad tenure for politicians can’t be busted-they keep reappearing!) The charter and community schools have had questionable security for implementation of testing. One in Cincy, DuBois, has it’s leader under criminal charges for using money to repair his home and other things. So much for dedication to the students. The teachers in many schools are not certified. I had one observing in my classroom. She was fully the teacher in their school, but just getting around to getting training. Don’t want her teaching my kid. No the charter schools and alternate setup is not correct and it’s not working as well as the public schools. Let Scott Elliot list the statewide results for each and every school and compare. How many charter schools have Centerville, Oakwood, Vandalia, Northmont, Kettering results?

By Belle Haven alum

October 26, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this

I never said that competition will cure ALL ills, however what is implicit - which I will now make explicit - is that competition will do a much better job of producing a “system of adequate schools” than any government entity could ever do.

By Mary

October 26, 2006 7:51 AM | Link to this

One of my dictionaries defines a “system” as an “Orderly combination or arrangement of parts …into a whole; especially,such combination according to some rational principle.” Adequate is defined as “Equal to what is required; suitable to the case or occasion.”. “Common” is also thrown around a lot in this discussion. To me the relavant definition for “common” is “pertaining to the entire public”. I would say a “combination” of traditional public schools, charters, online schools, home schooling, private, etc. could meet the definition of adequate system of common schools.

By Mary

October 26, 2006 7:34 AM | Link to this

Dave, I was focussed on defining a “system” and introducing the concept of “system”. I had not even got to “adequate”. However, if we had an “adequate system” with traditional public schooling alone, I do not think we would even be having this discussion or court case.

By Dave

October 25, 2006 10:16 PM | Link to this

Mary, you can define “adequate” till the cows come home. That still doesn’t change the facts. It will take more than mis-placed platitudes to solve the school problem.

By Desiree Bame

October 25, 2006 9:04 PM | Link to this

My son attends a charter school here in Springfield. I had originally enrolled him in the city schools, but after going to an open house I decided that for a child entering kindergarten, he’d benefit more by attending the charter school due to smaller class sizes. I was afraid that he’d end up being one of those children who slipped through the cracks in city schools because teachers aren’t able to focus enough individual attention on each student. I’m not blaming the teachers at all, they are doing the best with what they have, but I feel that the kids who do need that extra attention are being passed over because there just isn’t enough teachers and money to compensate. I feel that by attending a charter school my child will be at an advantage because he will have that one on one with his teacher and will be given more opportunities to do things like field trips and other learing activites as well as having regular physical education classes instead of just once a month like the city schools.

By Darryl

October 25, 2006 8:34 PM | Link to this

Kudos to the 4 Justices that ruled in favor of Charter Schools! While some refinements are necessary, this ruling gives both parents and children freedom and choice. No less an expert than Woody Hayes often said “Competition makes everyone better”. And that’s what the current education system needs, instead of more money, more money,more money and a continuation of archaic operation.

By Mary

October 25, 2006 8:26 PM | Link to this

John, with all due respect to those teachers who are highly qualified, an education degree and getting a job does not necessarily make one a highly qualified teacher. Dave, a “system of adequate schools” can be defined in different ways. A system can include private, traditional public, charter, homeschool, etc. - whatever works for the people of the state.

By Dave

October 25, 2006 4:24 PM | Link to this

Oh, yes, competition will cure ALL ills. So let’s have a competition tonight. 6 PM at Welcome Stadium. We’ll both run as hard as we can, and we’ll surely beat the 4 minute mile! Competition is a powerful tool in a free market economy, but like they say, to a man with a hammer, pretty soon all problems begin to look like nails. We have a problem where not all schools do a good enough job. Can competition solve the problem? So far, the results say NO. Charter schools, as a group, are no better or worse than public schools. How many more years (and how many students’ lives) do we spend before competition delivers on the promise? I still come back to the CONSTITUTIONAL requirement for the Governor and the Legislature to provide a system of adequate schools. If they can’t do the job, they should resign and give the job to someone who can get it done. And no, I don’t claim to have the answer. I suspect it involves good teachers, good school facilities, and motivation (i.e., if the kids see that education will get them a good job, instead of flipping burgers for minimum wage). But it is certainly NOT something to be solved with a quick platitude that promises a free lunch for taxpayers (I agree, taxes are already too high. But poor schools are even MORE expensive).

By Belle Haven alum

October 25, 2006 2:23 PM | Link to this

It boggles the mind how many folks do not understand the concept of competition. Most often, it is not a pleasant experience for entrenched industry players, but advancements - that benefit the majority of society -are not made without it. Imagine if federal courts had not issued the order to break-up AT&T; we would not have the likes of Cingular, Verizon, Nextel, etc. Charter schools range in quality from excellent to poor - just as traditional schools - but the primary issue is that w/ parents having the freedom to choose, ALL schools must compete and the competitive process works to refine/improve those left standing. And for a specific example of choice in education, look no further than the GI Bill after WWII.

By John

October 25, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

This is an outrage. The Ohio State Government as a whole should be ashamed. Charter schools in Ohio do not have to meet the same strict requirement that its public school employees are held to. Add to that, the for-profit nature of these institutions and you have a mockery of education in this state…..and our State Government wonders why we continue to score lower and lower in standardized testing. Here is an idea….send the students back to Public Schools where teachers are state mandated to be “highly Qualified”

By Mary

October 25, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

There was a time about two decades ago I would have been upset at such a decision. However, having been through the wringer as a captive parent/customer and former student of public education, I applaud the court’s embrace of choices as a fundamental freedom. More likely, the court’s rationale was legislative leeway for government to fix public education, not personal freedom. Reflecting on my own public education, I realize we have been needing choices in education for some time. Does this solve all the education problems? No. But it is much less frustrating to parents and students to have some empowerment in the system full of warts. Now if the courts could just do something about the slow lines at the post office - another mismanaged, heavily unionized government monopoly.