I say it’s the reverse. Treat them better and you may see things performance improve. They are bitter because of everything that is happening to them.
Kunzman (and Reich) are well-known and harsh critics of homeschooling. Kunzman clearly has an axe to grind and he lamely tries to diminish the value political tolerance:
But such a vision of civic engagement, with political tolerance as the primary criterion, is insufficient for a healthy liberal democracy. It certainly doesn’t get us very far towards the open-minded co-operation necessary for a diverse population to construct a vibrant civic life together.
Political tolerance does, indeed, get us much closer to open-minded co-operation. One need only look at the history of the 20th century to see the value and necessity of political tolerance to individual mental health and a healthy society. Kunzman lamely questions the value of political tolerance, asking if power is better:
Some observers might reply that politics is about power: while we should always concede basic civil liberties, we have no obligation to seek compromise or accommodation if we have the political power to shape society according to our own vision of the good life.
Seriously? Political tolerance is overrated? Again, read the history of the past 100 years including our recent politcal history under President Obama.
If homeschooled students are more politically tolerant, it would be because of their different social lives. This has been discussed among homeschoolers for decades. Attachment theory gives us a frame to understand the growing problem of peer-dependency and the growth of time spent in schools.
Young people spend an ever-greater amount of time in age-segregated groups and an ever-smaller amount of time with parents, extended family, and mentors. This represents an historic change from how young people have been socialized through much of our history. We don’t have to return to another way of life but we do need to grasp what is happening if we are going to make schools work for us and not against us.
Like many others activists and unschoolers, I have written about this issue at my blog, post in space
2 Likes
Well, few parents want “every kid” going to their school, but that’s usually not for academic reasons.
There are lots of charter schools which take any and all students and some that don’t. It depends on who’s running them. The same is true for public schools.
It seems to me that the biggest problem is that charters are so invested in proving “performance,” that many of them over-rely and focus on testing. Of course, the same is true for some public schools. Standardized testing is the common enemy!
1 Like
In my state, charters must accept anyone, but they have limited space. If they have too many kids for the school, they must go to a lottery. Public schools must accept all kids. Plus many charter schools require the parents to sign a contract pledging a specific number of service hours for their child to be accepted.
Standardize testing is not the idea of the schools usually, but politicians and state school boards. Charter schools can be exempt from many of the regulation that public schools are saddled with.
1 Like
This sounds like an argument for more charter schools.
I’ve not heard of this. Could you provide a link, please?
This is true. Better that assessment was put in the hands of teachers.
I’ve heard this, but not seen any evidence of it. Again, if you have a link, I’d much appreciate it.
Does Betteridge’s law of headlines apply here?
No, because the answer is, “It depends.”
Only if you’re an elitist jerk.
Here’s a faq for an Oklahoma charter school. If I may quote:
Are parents required to do community service hours?
Yes, parents are required to do 25 community service hours to the school.
1: http://www.hardingcharterprep.org/parents/prospective_families/f_a_q_s[quote=“aikimo, post:26, topic:27533”]
I’ve heard this, but not seen any evidence of it. Again, if you have a link, I’d much appreciate it.
[/quote]
Here’s a link to waivers requested by Colorado charter schools. Most are about teacher employment, and charter schools are usually still required to comply with federal and state testing. But many times they are given great latitude to get rid of problem students-- again an option public schools don’t have.
Wherever learning takes place is a-okay with me. But education funding is a zero-sum game these days. If you give it to one school, it’s coming out of another.
As a former public school teacher (in the US) and now a parent of a non-religious homeschooled child, the results of the study do not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is the reviewer’s insistence that the increased tolerance displayed by these young people is both suspect and inadequate. Mr. Kunzman’s own set of questions, designed to “expose” the limitations of the study, are based on a set of values which homeschooling families have already rejected. If homeschoolers believed in compromising their own identity and beliefs to prop up failing institutions, they would send their kids to public school! Testing a homeschooler’s commitment to public institutions and civic engagement is like testing an atheist’s commitment to churches and praying. Homeschooling emphasises uniqueness, diversity of approaches, and freedom to be oneself. The challenges to our modern institutions (including democracy itself) come not from too many free thinkers, but from too many “team” players who muffle their own voices in deference to tradition and compromise and thwart the reforms so desperately needed.
2 Likes
How is it “elitist” to think that there should be more of something that people apparently want? This is confusing. Also, “jerk?” Really?
Thanks for the link about parents needing to do community service. But it appears that this isn’t unique to charter schools.
I’m afraid that’s not true at all. I used to teach at non-profit schools where all the public schools in the county would send their problem children. Often, it was necessary. Sometimes, it was simply convenient.
But that makes sense, doesn’t it? In California, at least, the money follows the student. If a student goes to a charter, then the $8500-$9000 the previous school got for that student goes, instead, to the charter school. That’s less money for the previous school, but then they have one less student they need to teach.
So, basically, it seems that charter schools behave in similar ways to public schools. The money devoted to students who are lucky enough to get into charter schools still goes toward educating those students. So, I still don’t see the problem.
EDIT: I should add that I don’t agree with schools that require parent volunteers. But then, I don’t agree with a lot of what public and charter schools require. I just think people should have a choice when it comes to education.
1 Like
No, it’s ellist to think your child is so special he or she requires a special school and the unwashed masses be damned. Technically, I didn’t call you a jerk, only this sentiment.
That $9K plays out a lot different if you have a school of 200 (or less) as oppose to a school of 2000… add to it a parental commitment of service time and private donors ('cause you have creamed the best students from the other schools), in some case aren’t required to take special needs students, often lower teacher pay, etc. And because those top achieving students are no longer there, the public school is harangued for lower test scores.
Originally, charter schools who proposed as places to experiment and bring that knowledge back into the broader public schools. Now they are just walled gardens.
4 Likes
But this was a study of people who had been homeschooled for religious reasons, so no, not in this case.
1 Like
Who is saying “unwashed masses be damned?” Who is saying their kids need “special schools?” The answer to both questions is, “nobody.”
Parents want their kids in satisfying schools, not special schools. Those same parents want the same thing, satisfying schools, for all kids. This is generally why many charters are organized and created by local parents. I’m seriously stumped as to who you think is saying that as long as their kids get into “special schools,” it doesn’t matter what happens to the other kids. Please, who, exactly, is expressing this sentiment?
That’s a matter of financial management on the part of the district. Why should a poor or middle-class family be denied the opportunity to utilize a satisfactory school because the school district can’t manage the money the state gives them to educate their students?
I don’t think the charters that are popping up in low-income neighborhoods are getting many private donations. There are magnet schools and other types of public schools that aren’t required to take special needs students, as well. Most charters, like most public schools, are required to take special needs students.
It’s true there are charters that pay their teachers less, but it’s also true that there are charters that pay their teachers more. In the cases where they pay less, I think that’s a problem that needs solving. But it simply isn’t a reason to suggest that poor and middle-class kids should be denied the opportunity to go to a school that satisfies them.
That is an issue with test scores and the value we put on them. Again, it doesn’t justify telling poor and middle-class families that they have no choice in where they educate their kids.
This is a pretty baseless generalization. There are all kinds of charter schools, just as there are all kinds of public schools. Both models have problems. Both have teachers and administrators who are selfless and driven, along with those who are selfish and lazy. There are logistical and managerial and financial complications, to be sure. But so far, I’ve heard no arguments that would justify telling a poor or middle-class family that they don’t get to have any choices when it comes to one of the most fundamental and personal decisions any person can make.
Even if you don’t think their “political tolerance” means much, shouldn’t it mean something that the public schooled students did even worse?
Considering in both cases we’re talking about Christian fundamentalists, I think the difference is that this is is just one of many things that the homeschooled kids hadn’t actually thought about, yet. We’re talking about public school students who were radicalized by being confronted by opposing views, whereas the homeschoolers haven’t yet been exposed to any. I suspect the same survey done after those students leave their Christian college would show a change in attitude for the previously homeschooled.
The mechanism being proposed in Baton Rouge is a new city incorporation, not a charter school, but the effect is the same.
What the effect will be is unknown. It wouldn’t surprise me if some charters were created for selfish reasons, but I know for a fact that lots of poor and middle-class families are very thankful for their local charter schools. I can’t imagine telling them they shouldn’t have a school that satisfies them because some charters are started by rich, white people.
There is plenty of research showing that charters are no better educating child of equivalent aptitude. They have no special sauce. Now there is research on how to truly improve education in low income neighborhoods. You don’t want your kids in public education, fine. But public education is for the public, not a few hundred students who win a lottery. Charter Schools take resources away from traditional public schools.
2 Likes
There is plenty of research showing that kids at charters don’t score higher on standardized tests, but that has nothing to do with educating children. That has to do with scoring on tests. If we shouldn’t judge teachers based on these useless tests (and we shouldn’t), then we shouldn’t judge schools on them, either.
That’s certainly one way to do it. There are other ways, as well. Personally, I think we should respect the families in low income neighborhoods enough to give them the choice of how they want to improve their kids’ education. The one thing we know doesn’t work is when people in charge tell families what you seem to want to tell them, which is: “We know better than you do how your child should be educated, therefore, we will not allow you to use education money set aside for your child to educate that child in the way you want.”
I don’t think that’s compassionate or liberal.
The point is that these poor families do want their kids in public education. Unfortunately, people with your point of view want to deny them the opportunity to have schools they find satisfactory. Unfortunately, people with your point of view seem to think that if some poor kids have to go to crappy schools, then all poor kids should have to go to that school. That’s hardly fair.
Charter Schools take children away from traditional public schools, and children are not “resources” to be used for the continued inefficient operation of pubic institutions. Children and their families are human beings who deserve real opportunities for quality education, regardless of their income.
The only thing charter opponents can tell families trapped in unsatisfying schools is this:
“I’m sorry, but we’ve developed a financial structure that makes it hard for us to run the schools that have failed to meet your family’s needs if you choose to use the money we’ve set aside for your child’s education to go to a school that will actually meet your family’s needs.”
Those families deserve a more responsive government than that. They deserve more respect than that.
No. But it has everything to do with our ability to compare charter schools and traditional public school. If you have a better metric (preferably from a peer reviewed study) please whip it out.
Are we having the same conversation? I don’t want any kid to go to a crappy school. Pulling 50 kids out of a district of 2000 than ignoring the rest is not a solution. [quote=“aikimo, post:40, topic:27533”]
The only thing charter opponents can tell families trapped in unsatisfying schools is this:
I’m sorry, but we’ve developed a financial structure that makes it hard for us to run the schools that have failed to meet your family’s needs if you choose to use the money we’ve set aside for your child’s education to go to a school that will actually meet your family’s needs.
[/quote]
You nailed it. That’s the only thing I have said here. Damn my public education! Well that and on average charters schools are no better than public schools. Got any facts to go with your argument?
2 Likes
