wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Jenn from Brooklyn wrote: "They are enrolled by a completely transparent lottery, unlike the traditional zoned public schools that are also horrifically uneven based on what neighborhood they are in."

Another key point often overlooked. These schools are filled by lottery. The child in a Bedford-Stuyvesant public school is NOT receiving the same education as a child in a Tribeca public school.

Charter schools are reaching key demographics in NYC.

As a parent, I am so irritated by this ridiculous rhetoric. No one really gets down to the facts. It's all about the emotional appeal! Spreading misinformation is part of the problem. Your teacher speaker does charter school teachers make less, which is not always true.

Some really important facts that don't get the press of the emotional appeal of taking away funding and paying teachers less:
"A recent study showed that students in New York City's charter schools — who are selected randomly, by lottery, and are 90% African American and Latino — have closed 86% of the gap in test results between the poorest neighborhoods of the city and ritzy suburbs like Scarsdale, which is known for its excellent schools."

"Studies have found New York City students at charter outperform students at conventional public schools and have credited charter schools with narrowing the achievement gap between races within the city and between the city and the suburbs."

That speaks volumes to me.

Elizabeth, I think you misunderstood me. I did NOT say embrace the charter school concept OR embrace poor public schools. My point: we've thrown our hands up in the face of formidable obstacles to quality public education (e.g., the teachers' union) by doing an end run fix -- charter schools. Impossible though the bureaucratic challenges seem, imaginative and courageous solutions MUST be found. In a democracy, it is only fair and just to open the same doors to all our children, not just the ones who got lucky in a lottery -- or whose parents understood how to put them in the lottery in the first place.

My son attends a Charter School in Brooklyn actually the same school that Elizabeth the mom that spoke on the show. As she mentioned Character schools are public we actually had tours and I believe up coming tours to those parents that will like their children to attend our Charter school. I know some parents that travel to brooklyn to take their child there but that is an effort that the parent wants to do and I know many parents that will not travel far. It is a choice to send your child there and to state clear the kids on that zone get first choice. Charter Schools are not the problem; like some one mentioned NJ public schools get 24,000 per child and you would think that if there are less children then the more money they have left over to use for other resources funding for their school. The difference with Charter Schools is that we do not get into all that political debate that you can not do this and can not do that. We are more family united and public schools are so restricted and rigid. I know I'm an educator and now how the public school system works as well as the Charter. Liz, by the way not all Charter School teachers get pay less. That is not true.

Paul, thanks for ammending. It would be interesting to see a broad study of classroom and school discipline. At my son's charter school the younger kids have 2 teachers per 20 kids and there is a full time social worker as well as a special-ed teacher all of whom are available to deal with behavioral issues and seem almost always to be doing so when I visit the school. The students are taught what is expected of them and consequences are fair and consistant as well as helpful to the community of classoom and school. This consistancy was absolutely NOT the case in the very well regarded PS he attended last year and has perhaps been the major difference in his happiness and engagement this year. Only anecdotal to be sure, but that's part of the benefit of Charter Schools: different environments benefit different children and Charter Schools offer an opportunity for choice.

Elizabeth - I agree with you (about family support) but think that you missed part of the point about the teaching environment in public vs charter schools, especially in regards to classroom management issues. I don't know what happens in charter schools but in many districts it is very difficult to remove disruptive students (from the classroom or the school). Do charter schools face such restrictions? I would like to see a comparative study between charter and non-charter schools of what administrators call "classroom management" issues. I suspect it will reveal what I am trying to express, which is that the entire atmosphere (and performance) of a school can be affected by a few disruptive students (unfortunately I have first-hand knowledge of this). I suspect charter schools have an expedited process to deal with such problems and for the most part public schools do not.

Sash, I completely agree that every student deserves a high quality education, not just some, but from what your write it sounds like you think it's better for more students to "flounder in poor public schools" than to enjoy a "high quality education." Why not keep what's working very well while trying to fix what's not. Part of the problem of radically changing public education is the special interest of the Teacher's Union who protect their own jobs and benefits EVEN at the COST of educational reform.

To Paul, your agrument that Charter Schools only seem better because the parents are better is common sensical but has been disproven, by state wide and national studies following the progress of student's whose parents did apply for charter schools but were not given a place. Research shows that although these students were "already ahead of the game in terms of parental involvement and support, motivation and ...student academic performance" that each year they remained in the regular public school system they were NO DIFFERENT from their peirs whose parents did not apply for Charter Schools, whereas the students attending Charter Schools did better.

http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval/how_NYC_charter_schools_affect_achievement_sept2009.pdf

Why do commenters and callers keep insisting that charter schools take away resources? If you have 1000 kids in a district and 200 enoll in a charter school, ad the district loses funding for those 200 students, the district still receives the same per pupil budget! Why shoul they keep their budget intact when they have 200 fewer students to educate? That's how you end up with $24k per student budgets like in Hoboken. And if parents font care about their kids education than why should I waste my tax dollars on that family? I am a liberal democrat but at some point you have to draw the line.

Charter schools are public schools, taking only 80% of the money per student from the government that traditional public schools take. At our particular school, the teachers earn a higher salary than they would at a traditional public school. They are enrolled by a completely transparent lottery, unlike the traditional zoned public schools that are also horrifically uneven based on what neighborhood they are in.

That said, I agree that the best solution is to raise the level of all public schools. But I don't think charters are the problem.

Charter schools cherry pick students. Who applies to the schools? Those who already are ahead of the game in terms of parental involvement and support, motivation and I suspect student academic performance. When it comes to classroom management issues a single student (or 2 or even 3) can disrupt and impede the education of 30 others. Charter schools do not suffer from the political restrictions that public schools do in the manner in which they deal with such problems. I think charter schools can be part of the solution but not at the cost of siphoning off the best students and critical resources from public schools. In addition, in the interests of disclosure I am currently trying to find a teaching job in NJ and am concerned about the benefits and pensions of teachers under charter schools.

I agree with the caller teacher/mom)...charter schools are NOT the answer! If public schools are not doing the job, let's mobilize our efforts to fix them! Implement best practices of the charter schools and today's most innovative, cutting edge educators to revolutionize public schools. Charter schools fragment public education and, despite the "fair" lottery system, enable some students to get a high-quality education while unlucky kids flounder in poor public schools. By any other name and with the best intentions, charter schools ARE privatization -- with public funding. Exactly like private banks bolstered by public bailouts. This is a frightening trend.

How can your guest Maura Walz not know whether or not charter schools are taking money away from the traditional public school system? Isn't this a basic budgetary issue? Can't she go report on this? It seems like it should be a pretty simple thing to go look up.

Charter schools are public schools. A public school is a school that is free to attend. Charters are free to attend. The only difference is that rather than the government setting the curriculum and administering, the organization that runs the charter school sets the curriculum and administers.

If funding alone equals good schools then NJ should have the best schools in the nation given that we have the highest per pupil spending in the nation. My town o Hoboken spends $24,000 per student!!!! Where are the results? It can't get any worse. We are flushing money down the toilet with no results. Might as well try charter schools. Or for $24k per year send the kids to private prep school in new England!

Charter schools are defacto cherry picking.
The parents apply to the lottery for their children.

Charter schools would better serve their communities if they were restricted to accepting the lowest performing 30% of students, and the "special needs" students.

Take more money away from struggling and failing schools and give it to private institutions, many that are predominantly religious (Catholic). This goes against all logic. Especially considering most schools are predominantly funded by local property tax and surprise, surprise, most failing schools are in areas of low property values. Am I missing something here? Please explain how the heck is taking away money from a school that has very little rescores is not only going to improve it but also make it more competitive? Isn’t this like cutting a chicken’s head off and expecting it to still lay eggs?

Right on caller! After Katrina Louisiana closed 400 public schools in New Orleans and converted them to private charter schools. Only 40 public schools remain.

I'm not sure I understand the fervor around charters. Often I hear of schools closing that are going to reopen as charters with the same students with the same teachers in the same buildings. What happens magically that the schools suddenly improve simply because they become charters?

Great, privatize the profits and socialize the loss.

Charter schools are 21st century segregation.

A moving new film on the Charter School issue and the families caught in the gap:

http://thelotteryfilm.com

In theaters May 7th.