Separate = Unequal. Whether we call them magnet schools, charter schools, or magic schools, separate = unequal. Bottom line.

A Few thoughts,

First, there is no such thing as a charter school.  This is a broad misnomer.  There are instead, schools created by charter.  These have largely been refered to as charter schools.  The charter law was written to allow flexibility for innovation and experimentation in education.  It is highly funded because it is where the majority R&D in k-12 education is happening right now.  Some of these schools are aweful.  They were failed attempts and ought to be closed.  Some have proven to be highly successful and those models we need to let grow.  The problems you associate with "charter schools" in this post really do not belong with the schools but rather to the policy governing their opperations.  To shut them all down closes some fantastic schools and to stop the spread of these schools stops the spread of some powerfully good ideas.  The policy needs to change to reduce the spread of bad school models.

Second, @Kristen Is it really equality we strive for or fairness?  Is it fair to treat all equally or do some deserve modifications based on their needs? To simply say that all students need to go through one model of schooling reminds me a lot of this clip from The Color of Fear: 

Third, this problem is not simply a Charter school problem.  Traditional public schools do this too.  Alternative Schools often serve as a place for traditional schools to place students they do not want to deal with.  The law governing ALCs in most states is far more damaging than the charter laws:

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Janeen Steel

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Leonard Dixon

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Cynthia Cave

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Thomas Blomberg

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Rep. Scott

Lost Educational Opportunities in Alternative Settings: Rep. McCarthy

Part 2 is up.

@Pamela, a key point of our posts is that even if a charter school never actively turns away an applicant, it still creams for the higher-functioning, more-motivated students. Charter schools do not enroll the most troubled, at-risk young people who pose the greatest challenge to public education. And despite that creaming, they do not overall outperform traditional public schools. Some charter schools are excellent, just as some traditional public schools are.

Just posted by Alexander Russon on This Week in Education at http://scholasticadministrator.typepad.com/thisweekineducation/2009/03/chicago-so-many-dying-they-cant-keep-track.html

"There are so many kids being killed in Chicago this school year -- a record high despite lots of bloodshed in the past -- that they can't seem to keep track.  Ditto for the number of kids who've been shot. One estimate has it that over 500 kids during the past 18 months.  Another says it's double that. 

What no one disagrees about is that few of the incidents are happening in schools or during school hours. 

Amidst the carnage, no one knows whether to address -- and report -- this through the schools or through law enforcement, or both. 

In the past, I've argued that kids killed out of school are kids, not students.  At this point, I'm not sure it matters."

Your comments about charter schools seem some what biased. As some who has work in both traditional and charter schools i can tell you that  they are both in horrible conditions. The whole educational system is crumbling down
i work for a year as a teacher assistant and was doing most of the teaching becasue the retired teacher was not up for it. Futhermore there were so many kids that it was impossible to give the necessary attentions to thsoe who needed it. When it comes to Charters the biggest issue i have encountered is the lack of resources, which in turn deprives students of some things. However i work with three different charter schools and i can attest to the fact that they will take any one and most of their population is below the poverty lines.  In Arizona at least Charters are a great alternative to the overcrowed public schools,  there is simply no space to house all the students so if it wasnt for these schools they would simply not be in school.   

If a Charter School is working, and it is inclusive (ours includes both local kids and those from the inner city) would you dismantle it?  We have many of the "very troubled, high-need, at-risk students" you refer to.
Your generalizations are worthless as they could be applied to any school.  All public schools are failing in the U.S. because the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the "industrialized nations"?
Not really.  Any time that parents care about their kids and spend some time participating in the educational process schools can be effective.  That is the real problem - lack of parental involvement - and Charter Schools do a far better job of fostering that than "regular" public schools.

@David, unless you work at charter schools that specifically teach juvenile offenders or another special category, your charter schools do not teach the MOST "troubled, high-need, at-risk students," because you only have students whose parents/guardians reached out to find and apply to the school.

Charter schools may "foster" parental involvement by requiring it. By definition, kids whose parents are not willing or able to meet that requirement (and kids who don't have parents) will not be in those schools. That's our entire point.

I've had the privilege of working with innovative educators on both the systemic change and charter development side of public school reform. These are not unrelated strategies--and they are both essential to renewing and strengthening public education.

Of course, change is scary and there isn't a clear blueprint for people to follow. But know that there are many talented and deeply committed educators embracing the new tools and vigorously pursuing the new opportunities to make the promise of public education a reality for all children. 

BTW: The idea of chartering public schools in order to reduce central district beaucratic redtape was first proposed by Al Shanker and made into reality in 1990 by a group of teachers in Minnesota.

Downsizing and transforming districts into streamlined service centers while devolving real authority to the school-level teams are smart reforms but only if the bar is raised on accountability for results and the use of public funds.

Consider learning:  Without learning there can be no education.  Maximize learning and you maximize education.  How does one maximize learning?   When a teacher is presenting, to maximize learning, 100% of the student's attention should be focused upon the teacher.  Distractions in the classroom environment, what ever the cause, will reduce optimal learning.  How much reduced learning are you willing to settle for?  Do you want a day-care center or a classroom conducive to learning?  Most public schools of today seem to have forgotten that learning is essential to becoming educated and appear to have embraced the day care concept. 

As someone preparing to enter the world of education, and as someone who has argued with conservatives about "school choice", I am very interested in this issue, so I apologize for side-tracking here.

I just can't help but notice your choice of photo - four young men, probably African-American or Latino, but clearly exhibiting a hip-hop fashion sensibility - simply walking down the street.  Given the subject of this article, are we to associate this demographic, or perhaps their choice of fashion with poor education? 

In a way, aren't you contributing to the vague stereotype that associates people who "look like this" with "troubled"?  In the broader context of this article, maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal, but I hope you'll address this for me...

Upon further thought, I realize that my question may not be that much of a sidetrack.  If educators harbor preconceptions - albeit very deep-seated - about their students based on demographics or appearance, does it not dampen their expectations and limit how much they will apply themselves to the job?  No one wants to rally behind a lost cause, after all. 

These kinds of things -preconceptions, stereotypes - operate on a very subversive level, but in a way that strongly impacts how we engage with others.  And engagement or lack thereof is at least part of the problem for both teachers and students in any failing educational system.

Charter schools were about making public education more competitive and corporate like.  Given the complete failure of our financial system, hopefully people will appreciate the distributed public institution that made America a great country.  In a very large urban district, perhaps there is a role for Charter schools, but this is the exception.  We must build up the education profession and fund public schools properly.

My son is autistic. I was forced to watch him outside the kindergarden classroom because the public school wouldn't protect him if he ran away. The principal said terrible things about what would happen if we left the public school. Although I did all the work charter school (Horizon in California) saved my son. The public school was just going to pass him on to the first grade. I think it is dangerous to say that all Charter Schools are bad.

Another family I knew was in Horizon Charter School. Their 4 children tested gifted at the Charter School. They tried public school for one year and were failing. The kids didn't want to go back to public school. But the x-dad took the mom to family court. The mom advocate proved that charter school is part of public school and that the children were doing academically well plus improving on their learning disabilities. Some families need Charter Schools.

My son is autistic. I was forced to watch him outside the kindergarden classroom because the public school wouldn't protect him if he ran away. The principal said terrible things about what would happen if we left the public school. Although I did all the work charter school (Horizon in California) saved my son. The public school was just going to pass him on to the first grade. I think it is dangerous to say that all Charter Schools are bad.

Another family I knew was in Horizon Charter School. Their 4 children tested gifted at the Charter School. They tried public school for one year and were failing. The kids didn't want to go back to public school. But the x-dad took the mom to family court. The mom advocate proved that charter school is part of public school and that the children were doing academically well plus improving on their learning disabilities. Some families need Charter Schools.

Godheval Chaos raises a very good point about expectations. A friend, Dr. Deborah Kenny, started Harlem Village Academies, a set of chartered pubic schools with the express purpose of preparing Harlem's ill-served children with a college preparatory education. Her schools enroll children starting in the 5th grade--and most come in 1, 2 or 3 years behind--and all are from economically disadvantaged African American and Latino families. The results thus far? Her schools are not only out-performing the local district but her students are competitive with the best suburban students. 

Getting back to the point about expectations. Compare these photos w/those attached w/this article. The lesson for me is that politicizing needed reforms are a distraction from what's most important -- educating children.

Having said that, it's not in anyway to suggest that all charter schools are good (they're not) or that all innercity district schools are bad (they're not). The point for policymakers and educators is to create a system in which all children can excel.

Are there charter schools trying to game the system? Absolutely! Such schools most be held to account. But that's why it's really important to understand that the quality, professionalism and seriousness of the chartering process is key.  

I agree with Gerry. Their focus should be on children excelling. If they have learning problems focus on hands on learning to kick in the other senses. What is really sad is that regular public school teachers never learn in their training as a teacher about teaching special ed students or being able to identify learning problems. It would only take a semester to do this. We force children to be bored out of their minds in public school with teachers not trained in special ed methods.

This topic definitely works up the passion. By the way, I wasn't involved with deciding the photo for this post.

Here is my reality.

Yesterday I calculated the growth of charter school enrollment for middle schools in Oakland. Currently, charter school enrollment is 21.74% of our district's total middle school enrollment, and 18% district-wide. At this current rate, charter middle school enrollment in OUSD will hit 30% in 2011-12. It will hit 55% in 2020-21, and 100% in 2036-37. Of course, the entire district is headed on that path. See my current post @ http://perimeterprimate.blogspot.com/2009/03/battle.html

Of course, what this means is that the education of Oakland's children will be overseen by individuals who have NO connection to our city. The school boards we have elected for the last 100 years or so will become obsolete. Boards of directors of charter school organizations will take their place, the vast majority being outsiders who know nothing about our city, its history, and its complicated dynamics, nor do they care.

Beyond the unending back and forth about charters, this fight is about the loss of autonomy for Oakland's citizens. I always thought self-determination was something our democracy was supposed to provide for us. The entrepreneurs are engineering something different, and our political leaders are letting it happen.

I don't know where any of you live, and if you are public school parents, or not. This storm is upon Oakland, DC, NYC, LA, and many other cities. Has it landed in the community where you send your kids? What is the percentage of charter schools there?

If it hasn't yet arrived, then please tell me how you would respond if people who didn't even live in your town, and had never used your local public schools, were using their Money and Might to completely destabilize your school district? What is going on here reeks of their contempt for me, my family, and my neighbors.

Oaklanders never voted for this major change to their public school system after discussion and debate, if we had I would feel different. No, this situation was thrust upon us in a particularly devious way, and had to do with backroom deals and paybacks for campaign contributions. Just read my blog -- http://perimeterprimate.blogspot.com/2009/03/national-scene-on-local-scale.html &
http://perimeterprimate.blogspot.com/2009/03/is-it-fiction-or-not-not.html

There is no question that a handful of players are targeting other communities in the U.S. using the exact same technique which includes a lot of propaganda.

I worry about my fellow Oakland residents. With the elimination of our public schools comes a loss of protected jobs, since many of the district's employees are Oakland residents. Of course, I can already hear the anti-union sentiment portion of the pro-charter mantra out in the change.org blogosphere.

It's funny; no one bashed our firemen (unionized) when the Oakland Firestorm killed 25 people and destroyed nearly 4,000 homes. Bill Gates doesn't go around the country blaming our understaffed police force (unionized) for every single data point of our crime. But urban teachers, like those in Oakland, are constantly getting broadly reamed - though ONLY by those same people who have never experienced, and know nothing, about our schools.

For those of us who live in an area where the majority of students who attend public schools are poor, a different variation of a two-tiered educational system has emerged. Poorer communities will soon have no say in how their public schools are run, but of course, wealthier communities will.

If I was a billionaire who wanted to bring about public education change, my approach would have been very different. I would have provided information, encouragement and support to the people in struggling school communities. I would have spent some of my money on programs that would draw parents of low-achieving kids into the conversation, and give them a set of tools and skills that would have empowered them. My work would have been to find ways to strengthen the things that were weak, instead of trying so hard to break everything down.

Love is the message, Public School teachers are taught those things, they just choose to ignore it. I have friends in teacher education, many of their classmates have been surprised that a traditional public school teacher would have to deal with *gasp* ADHD students. Apparently they were under the impression that all students with learning differences should be excluded. Unfortunately most families, regardless of income, don't know that they can fight for the least restrictive environment for their children. That if their child needs accomodations their child should get them, within reason. So only the parents with the resources and knowledge to fight get that.

I have my eldest in a Public Montessori. It's much like a charter school, in that every child's parent chose to send them there. I'm a little disinclined to think we should punish Parent #1's child because Parent #2 needs supports.

We probably should, instead of going against choice, push for more funding into social services programs. Because while parent #2 might not be active in his or her child's education, Parent #2 probably has applied for foodstamps. I know in MI, many of the workers will give additional support information to the families they work with. This probably should be done around the country as well. That will help Parent #2 far more than giving Parent #1 fewer choices will. While schooling presents a huge influence over a child, it can't replace the parent.

Also I doubt the charter usage will continue to grow at the same rate, simply because low income, mentally unstable parents aren't the only ones that don't take an active role in their children's educations. Quite a few functional families are perfectly happy to send their children to school based on where they live.

We also need to alter no child left behind, so that money isn't pulled away from troubled schools. That does nothing but hurt an already ailing school.

One teacher, one school can make a difference. We need to figure out what works instead of generalizing that parents who don't do something, don't care.

I too appreciate the fact President Obama wants better education opprotunities for all of our children. But my main concern with charters schools is that they take much needed money away from the public school system, which makes them private schools paid for with public dollars. That money could be better used to help our public schools improve their education programs, train and hire better teachers and staff,  improve their programs in art and culture, music, physcial education, and sports. 

Anna, Since chartered public schools are PUBLIC schools, how can they take money away from the public school system?

Is it really wrong for the public funds earmarked to educate a child in a public school to go to the chartered public he/she attends? What sense would it make morally and as a policy matter for those funds instead to go to the local district whose schools the child is not attending?

Don't confuse chartered public schools w/private schools as they are wholly different institutions. Also, don't define a public school system as only containing school districts. Finally, don't assume that school districts--as part of the public school system--can't evolve.

My concern is that state legislatures allow for the establishment of chartered public schools but then they bend to powerful interest groups and under-fund them. In my state, which is more generous then many others, a student attending a chartered public school is worth less than three-quarters of district student. The local district get to pocket the 30% difference. And due to the power of the pro-district lobbies in the state capitols, chartered public schools are often denied funds allocated for public school facilities. 

Now that's inequality! But nothing new in public education across America as our property tax based funding schemes lock in inequality of the grossest form. 

Isn't this website called "Change.org"? What am I missing?

Gerry

Anna, Since chartered public schools are PUBLIC schools, how can they take money away from the public school system?

Is it really wrong for the public funds earmarked to educate a child in a public school to go to the chartered public he/she attends? What sense would it make morally and as a policy matter for those funds instead to go to the local district whose schools the child is not attending?

Don't confuse chartered public schools w/private schools as they are wholly different institutions. Also, don't define a public school system as only containing school districts. Finally, don't assume that school districts--as part of the public school system--can't evolve.

My concern is that state legislatures allow for the establishment of chartered public schools but then they bend to powerful interest groups and under-fund them. In my state, which is more generous then many others, a student attending a chartered public school is worth less than three-quarters of district student. The local district get to pocket the 30% difference. And due to the power of the pro-district lobbies in the state capitols, chartered public schools are often denied funds allocated for public school facilities. 

Now that's inequality! But nothing new in public education across America as our property tax based funding schemes lock in inequality of the grossest form. 

Isn't this website called "Change.org"? What am I missing?

Gerry

Anna, Since chartered public schools are PUBLIC schools, how can they take money away from the public school system?

Is it really wrong for the public funds earmarked to educate a child in a public school to go to the chartered public he/she attends? What sense would it make morally and as a policy matter for those funds instead to go to the local district whose schools the child is not attending?

Don't confuse chartered public schools w/private schools as they are wholly different institutions. Also, don't define a public school system as only containing school districts. Finally, don't assume that school districts--as part of the public school system--can't evolve.

My concern is that state legislatures allow for the establishment of chartered public schools but then they bend to powerful interest groups and under-fund them. In my state, which is more generous then many others, a student attending a chartered public school is worth less than three-quarters of district student. The local district get to pocket the 30% difference. And due to the power of the pro-district lobbies in the state capitols, chartered public schools are often denied funds allocated for public school facilities. 

Now that's inequality! But nothing new in public education across America as our property tax based funding schemes lock in inequality of the grossest form. 

Isn't this website called "Change.org"? What am I missing?

Gerry

Thank you to the authors of these articles about the negative agenda and impact of charter schools.  The experiences are similar to what we have seen in Albany, NY.  In Albany, a small, struggling urban public school system - with many problems, but also with many great attributes - has been under attack for the past decade by the charter school industry.  The Republican led (but with active Democratic support) charter folks in New York choose Albany as the district within which they could conduct an experiment to see how far they could go in saturating a public school system with charters before making the public schools collapse.   Albany has close to 10% of the charters in NY State, although it is a small district and is far from the worst district in the State in so far as test scores or any other measurement.  This was foisted on us by the State.  The people of Albany had no choice in this and the charters are not in any manner accountable to the people or elected officials of Albany, although we have been required to turn over more than $100 million dollars of the past years to them.  The result has been devastating to our public schools, which, after all, the overwhelming majority of our children (the majority of whom are poor and African-American) still attend.  This is progress?

I have been involved as an active Albany public school parent for twenty years.  I am in my third year as co-president of the Albany City PTA.  We have been rallying, lobbying, writing letters, etc., for years and have had little success from the NYS legislature which seems largely unsympathetic to the impact the charters have had on our public schools.

The question is not whether any individual student might in the immediate future do better in a particular charter school than in a public school, the issue is how do we want education resources allocated.  We should favor the allocation of resources in order to benefit all children, not to benefit a few at the expense of the rest.  

 

@Gerry, this is true indeed:
**The idea of chartering public schools in order to reduce central district beaucratic redtape was first proposed by Al Shanker and made into reality in 1990 by a group of teachers in Minnesota.**
But there is extensive discussion, including in the less-far-right segment of the charter world of the fact that their vision has been hijacked by the right-wing, free-market privatization advocates, and that is being carried out with funding from the Billionaire Eduphilanthropreneurs' Club, in a direct and mightily funded attack on public education. It was a major unintended consequence.

@LoveIsTheMessage, we didn't say all charter schools are bad. As I often say (including in this post), some charter school are excellent, some are struggling and the rest are somewhere in between -- just like traditional public schools.
However, we believe that the charter MOVEMENT is overall harmful to public education. And I'm sure you're aware that overall, charter schools notoriously underserve students with autism and other special needs, and an exception here and there doesn't change that. Advocates for children with disabilities are very shortsighted and badly misguided to promote charter schools given that very obvious, widely discussed, openly discriminatory failing.

And @Gerry, charter schools get public money but are not publicly accountable (they claim to be, but it's a spurious claim, promoted by the bountifully funded PR machine that promotes charters). So I would dispute that they're public schools in the true sense.
 
@Mark, I first became involved in this area of activism when Edison Schools was wreaking destruction on my school district in 2001. I know your city was suffering from the same affliction. Though Edison has largely fizzled (its former cheerleaders now treat it like an embarrassing odor in the room), the harm sometimes lingers. Good luck!

People need choices based on their situation. I was seeing so many autistic children and families homeschooling, charter schooling because the public school offered nothing. We tried public school and my son was not allowed week after week to attend class if there was a substitute. The principal sent him home. I was reminded how disruptive he was in class. We had a great IEP.

Some of you blog because you want to protect an entity, a school. Others talk about protecting the children. Obviously it depends on your point of view. Charter Schools can protect and save at risk children. Some schools are bad, some schools are good. It's OK to disagree as long as we are honest about what we are promoting. I am promoting choice. A child only gets one chance at an education. As the child's parent I am looking for what works for my child. Each education is individualize- what works for my child may not work for your child. That is why it is important to keep as many options open.

We all live in different parts of the country. Don't assume we are all the same. Let's find out what works. Lets find out choices we have. Then maybe we could change education. Let's be open to what people are saying for we could learn from each other.

Here in West Michigan, chartered schools are being used specifically to get rid of union jobs. Teachers then cannot speak up to improve conditions for students, are required to work for long hours for a lower fixed salary, and are fired anyway when the new crop of certified teachers arrive, cheaper than the old.
There are two types of chartered schools: for-profit, who demonstrate that elementary school children can be warehoused at a lower cost than high school children can be taught, and who make a profit of a few thousand dollars per year per child (this is how money is taken out of the "public school system"). The other chartered schools are chartered by public school or college systems, who see them as a way to evade negotiation and contracts with teachers unions.
In neither case does anyone demonstrate any interest in the best interests of the community or the children therein - they measure success by the number of children from out of district that they attract, or the amount of money they do not spend per pupil.
This distracts from what could be the real comparison with traditional school districts - why do the traditional districts spend more than half of the per-pupil income on administration? In a low income school district which receives over $10,000 per year per student, why do art teachers get an allowance of 4 cents per child per year for materials? I can only hope that these numbers change to be more for the benefit of students in chartered schools, and then perhaps the focus could move more to where it belongs- administrative problems. Imagine a ten-million-dollar a year business (high school) whose CEO (principal) is proud to announce that s/he does not understand percentages? With a board of governors, overseeing several such plants, who have NO corporate financial background, and could not spot accounting artistry if it were pointed out in purple ink.
I strive for change every day.

Hi Sharon and Caroline,
The larger question behind this fascinating discussion you started is:  "Does public education need to change, and if so, how, and who decides?" Without putting blame on anyone or justifying anything, its just a fact that every once in a while a system must go through the upheaval of change.  It's usually messy.  Real change doesn't jump fully mature and all the kinks worked out from theory to practice. That's a dictatorship.  We have a democracy and so change has to be lived out one trial baloon at a time. There are no slick answers. It's b e c a u s e the children you champion in Oakland are not served by the prevailing educational culture that people are trying things.

Here's the story of why I, a citizen concerened about expanding educational excellence to all U.S. children ( www.whole.org ) and a "Waldorf" educator, welcomed the arrival of public charter school legislation. Until it became possible for Waldorf educators to petition their local school district for the privilege to serve public school students, Waldorf education in the U.S. only existed in private schools. 

Yes, before public charter school legislation made public Waldorf education possible, there were individual Waldorf-trained teachers working in public schools who just went ahead an implemented as much of the Waldorf educational standards and assessments as they could in their public school classrooms.   Our documentary, "The Waldorf Promise: Eight Waldorf Teachers Talk About Their Public School Classrooms" (www.landfallprods.com ), tells this story. 

Now, ten years later, according to the Alliance for Public Waldorf Education (www.allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org )there are around twenty schools in the U.S. offering the Waldorf educational approach in U.S. public schools.  As a matter of fact, the growth of the private Waldorf educational movement has slowed to a trickle with no new private Waldorf schools opening in the last five years while public Waldorf education is growing rapidly. 

Should we vilify Waldorf educators for jumping at the opening to serve all children? Public Waldorf education does more than just serve public school students an education formerly only available to private school families.  Public Waldorf education also aims to transform the U.S. educational climate:  We question the prevailing education dogma that says test scores, alone are a measure of the child, the teacher, the parents or the school.  Accountability, Waldorf educators in public schools propose, must go beyond standardized test scores and look at gains and losses in children's overall physical and mental health. 

Your public school students in Oakland not only suffer from poverty; perhaps the biggest hurdle they face is that despite spending 8 hours a day in school they are fed a thin veneer of instruction rather than a juicy, meaty education.

As a former traditional public school teacher, I can see the validity and truth of the author's perspective, I can’t help thinking that the individual students that are better served in a charter school setting should not sacrifice their shot at a quality education for the betterment of those in the traditional schools.  Their very presence, their parents’ involvement and the dollars that stay with them in the public school may indeed bolster a traditional urban school’s general performance, but at what cost to that student?  Do other students really benefit if a student stays in the traditional urban setting to suffer a mediocre education?  Or does it just make it easier on the teachers and the administrators if they stay?  The standardized test scores and attendance rates are indeed improved if they stay, but can we really ask a promising, well-behaving student with motivated parents to stay for the purposes of bettering the schools numbers and making life easier for the staff?  I don’t think that is a fair argument for that student and his family and we do our nation no favors thinking this way.

  All of this makes me wonder if this is more about the industrialization of education than whether to offer specialized schools within the industrial system.  It seems that urban public schools kids are suffering the same fate as a cow in a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).     In a factory farm setting the livestock are raised in confinement at very high density.  The confinement, density, growth hormones and feed that is not a natural part of their diet causes many health problems that led to the use of prophylactic antibiotics given to the animals as a standard industrial practice.  It also has led to some serious environmental hazards, as the high-density waste is not something that is easily assimilated by the natural environment.  The goal of the factory farm is not the health of the environment or the animals in their care, rather it is the highest output at the lowest cost.   This seems alarmingly similar to the urban school setting, including the school where I taught.  In a large urban school district with many schools under its management, the goal is the highest output (test scores, graduate rates) at the lowest cost (fewest possible teachers and programs and structural improvements).  There is confinement (reducing or removing recess) and high-density and food that is more cheap than nutritious ($1.40 for a full priced lunch at Denver Public schools will get you plenty of artificial colors and flavors, nitrates, and high fructose corn syrup).   What if we approached the urban school problems in a way that would also benefit the farming of animals?  If the density goes down there are more resources to devote to the students and the animals.  With less density and less responsibility by few people at the top, there is an opportunity to better understand and make adjustments to meet the needs of the “occupants”.  Lower density would make those overseeing the organization more able to focus on the individuality and humanity (or animal-ness as the case may be) rather than the numbers.  It would enable them to focus on the goal of quality of output rather than the highest output for the fewest dollars.  Isn’t that really in keeping with the point of education anyway?   What if we approached the question, then more in terms of limiting the size of a district?  Would the reduced density correspond to a reduction in the problems associated with density?  I have to believe that a cottage farm is far healthier than a factory farm and the same goes for a smaller school or district than for a mammoth urban  industrial education organization.  This seems to be the reason for the rise in home schooling, and the increased enrollment at private schools and even at charter schools.  Parents intuitively know that a smaller environment promotes higher quality.

Hi, @rebecca. Yes, of course there are troubled and struggling public schools, and it's a shame that you're running into that. There are definitely some good charter schools, if you look at them individually, and it's understandable that a parent might want to seek one out to meet the student's needs. (There are also many troubled and struggling charter schools, of course.)

But when you look at the issue of how charter schools do overall, and how they impact ALL students and ALL schools, overall they are not more successful -- and in my view they have a harmful impact on public education in general, and thus on students.

@Love is the Answer, it is a NATIONWIDE issue that charter schools notoriously, egregiously underserve special education students. I think you're looking at the small, local picture, and I'm glad you have found a successful school for your child, but in the greater picture, other children with disabilities are being harmed by discrimination by charter schools overall. This is a widely discussed problem, including by those voices within the charter community that are sincere and honest. (Unfortunately, many are neither.)

@Joan, Waldorf charters are sometimes controversial because of the widespread belief that Waldorf education is based on a religion, Rudolf Steiner's theology, Anthroposophy. Or rather, in SOME places Waldorf charters are controversial. In placid communities with little public engagement they seem to win favor without debate. A proposed Waldorf charter has been  hotly debated here in San Francisco (which is not a placid community and has lots of public engagement) -- San Francisco is also the home of the organization People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools , www.waldorfcritics.org , which sometimes files suit over Waldorf charter proposals on a separation-of-church-and-state basis. Just some points of information.

@Tracy, as the parent of urban public school children, I am not finding them to be suffering the same fate as a CAFO, and their education has not borne any resemblance to a factory farm, you'll be happy to hear. They attend a fairly small public arts high school (after successfully and happily completing fairly large traditional public elementary and middle schools). However, here in San Francisco, the most popular and successful high schools are actually the largest, so when I hear the claim that small schools are inherently always better, I do have to point that out. 

This post, and all the discussion that has ensued, has failed to address a broad preconceived notion of whether we need schools at all.  Charter schools bad?  Public schools bad?  What about the whole institution of formalized education?  The whole notion of prescriptive curriculum (I know the other posts and subsequent discussions regarding the Sudbury schools address this)?  Public s[S]chooling was created out of a need for individuals with expert content knowledge to pass that knowledge onto subsequent generations in lieu of any devices/methods to do this more efficiently than person to person.  Could it be argued that this need has diminished?  Has schooling become self serving?  Does school prepare students well for their lives or does it prepare students well for more formal education?  Could it be that we place too much value on the diploma or the degree and what really matters is what someone can do?  Aren't these questions what lie at the heart of the school choice debate, a debate that encompasses more than just traditional public schools and charters to include homeschooling, private schools, online schools, and dropouts.  In the interest of public education are schools still the best vehicle to achieve these goals?  Could a better result be obtained through a myrad of media devices such as video games, television, interactive websites, and podcasts? 

Lets wipe the slate clean.  For a moment pretend there are not necessarily any schools.  Identify our needs and goals then extrapolate the most effective method of achieving those goals.  What are we left with?  The same traditional public schools we had originally?  The plethora of charter school models that have developed?  No school at all?

@Caroline. Everyone has different measures of success. Perhaps you are looking at a set of scores that distinguishes one public school from another. I am not impressed with STAR testing etc. Your criteria of success is different from mine. I looked at each of my children individually and match the school to their individual needs. All my children are gifted and took Academic Talent Classes at the college even the autistic child.

Whatever criteria of success that you use to make your educational decisions as long as it works for you that is what counts. I just found with other parents with high risk children that STAR testing results , school ranking etc. created problems. Differently able students need teachers who understand and can reach them. They need hands on way of learning etc.

High risk, differently able students have different needs from regular and gifted children. So I am glad you brought this point up. How I judge a school as successful is different from other parents who have regular or gifted children. High risk children need a more supportive environment that isn't covered in those school statistics. The most successful high risk students had people who believed in them. They were liked and accepted.

The proponents of charters have consistently, nonstop, bashed traditional public schools for their low achievement based on "a set of scores that distinguish one school from another ... STAR testing etc." Then, when charter schools fail to do better based on those same criteria -- again, the very same criteria the charter school proponents used to bash public schools -- the charter advocates turn around and say, "Test scores don't matter!" That's inconsistent at best, dishonest and hypocritical at worst.

Interesting comments, Carl.  Have you ever read Deschooling Society?  This question has been around for some time but the industry of education is so entrenched.  I think it is good to question the way we educate our society - the how and for what purpose.  Being a Waldorf proponent, I would add a hefty amount nature and the arts in all of that technology, and hope for a sense of community rather than isolation that can happen when we spend too much time with computers.

@Caroline. When you have a high risk child to be successful they have to be in a supportive environment. What do you think special education is? Each child has individual needs. Let's not confuse test scores (upset that its dishonest, hypocritical etc) which measure school's performance  with individual needs of high risk students. Talking about the child is not the same as talking about the school. Even if my child is gifted he may only get regular scores on the STAR Test. The fact that he isn't falling behind several grades is wonderful. Parents of high risk students have to find schools in a different way than regular students. The student is failing so we have to find people and supports that know how to help our children. It's totally different than what you are talking about. We have different measurements of success. To us success means that our kids are making progress and getting a meaningful education. So we just disagree and do what we need to do for the sake of our kids. That is why the child is more important than the school when we talk about education.