OT - Troubling Ranking for Nebraska Schools
- Thread starter Archie Graham
- Start date
Looks like an advertisement. For charter schools. I call BS
Mt Michael is one of the best high schools in the country. Not sure how you can leave those brainiacs off of any academic rankings.
Why? What exactly is it that you are questioning?
I did a quick search for the definition of charter schools and turned this up.
What is a charter school?
A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations, in return for greater accountability for performance. The "charter" establishing each school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, students served, performance goals, and methods of assessment.
What is the difference between charter schools and other public schools?
Charter schools are public schools of choice, meaning that families choose them for their children. They operate with freedom from some of the regulations that are imposed upon district schools. Charter schools are accountable for academin results and for upholding the promises made in their charters. They must demonstrate performance in the areas of academic achievement, financial management, and organizational stability. If a charter school does not meet performance goals, it may be closed.
Given this definition, I could possibly understand an argument claiming that expectations of improved results would pressure Charter Schools to inflate test scores. On the other hand, the best Teachers and Students would be more interested attending a school that is known to produce better results.
Just seeking clarity on your BS comment. Tks...
Im calling BS on Nebraska having high schools that rank near the bottom in the entire nation.
Im calling BS because of what I put in bold from your post. Having your pick of kids and parent doesnt make a better school. Or better teachers.
I know many teachers. Have 3 in my family. While I think they whine too much and dont realize they are fairly well paid, Ive learned plenty about education from them. Namely well to do students from well to do families generally do better than poor kids. Doesnt mean they are better. Doesnt mean the school and teachers of non title 1 schools are better. They were just more likely to start with a nice cut of steak, while some teachers start with less than chuck.
I dont want to write some huge post but just let me say Ive heard enough stories from teacher relatives that make me think they are doing a great job just getting some of these kids to care enough to even try to learn.
Im not trying to be antagonistic. I just appreciate the public schools we have (at least Lincoln which I am familiar with)
Charter schools are a great idea and the public school unions have done an excellent job brainwashing the public (especially teachers) otherwise. Charter schools have found great success in Minnesota and Florida, especially in inner cities by created alternatives for students whose parents are okay with them being in a more disciplined environment.
All this amounts to is more choice for students, especially underprivileged. We need to also have a voucher system for parents to take their students to the school of their choice, even if that is a parochial school. You can't preach about being in it for the children while still limiting their options to seek a better education. It makes no sense for one school to blindly collect tax dollars for all the kids in the district. Good public schools will not have to worry. Others will have to improve. Why is this bad? Because union bosses and employees are worried it will end up with them not getting their guaranteed cut to live on the gravy train, and politicians they campaign are bought, that's why.
Well, this is curious. I'm not sure just what they are looking at. I lived in Florida for nearly 20 years and left so that my kids could get a decent education because it's education system was generally ranked 49th out of the 50 states for a very long time. Now this says that it's one of the tops in the nation. I have a hard time believing they turned it completely around in 13 years.
Read the attached story. I'm just a few hours and student teaching away from an education degree, so I'm not an expert, I've just got an interest in this type of stuff.
There's a few holes in the study IMHO.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
There's a few holes in the study IMHO.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
I was tempted to leave this thread alone but when it comes to education, from which I am retiring in a couple of months, I could not resist.
Some good points made above. I don't know where Common Core (CC) is in Nebraska but in Kansas this will be the first year of having something close to a valid test for it. It has been taught for several years but it always takes several years to build the tests. If you ever want to do something boring go to a seminar on standardized test development - gender bias, racial bias, socio-economic bias, etc, etc, etc. Nearly impossible to write the perfect test. This is kind of a transition year for test makers from the old system of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to CC. There is no doctoring of the tests really unless you flat out cheat which can be done but the reality is you eventually will be found out.
Charter Schools are good in my opinion although I have never worked at one. They generally have a focus in a key area - industrial, technology, music, arts, etc. I have been an administrator in private Christian schools for the last four years, and in fact helped start a new Classical Christian school this year. There are multiple Classical Charter Schools popping up across the country. There are generally waiting lists and it is competitive to get into many Charter schools (I won't say all as I don't know for certain). They do get to pick and chose who they take in. Through the selection process, small class sizes, focused curriculum, lots of structure and generally more money, these schools do well. Some states, New York, are shutting them down - why I don't know aside the unions are not as strong in them. Those students do have to perform well on standardized tests to merit the school being there. And yes, they do attract the better teachers as a whole because of the structure. I agree with what was said above about the social structure but that is not a guarantee. Having means naturally leads to more exposure to the world of education outside of books and a classroom but it does not make thinkers and doers of everyone.
I heard some speakers several years ago from Florida and they were making sweeping changes and I have heard they turned things around quickly there. I know for a fact, in a small to medium size school, which I have worked in, you can change things very quickly - 2-3 years easily. If the state is very involved and you have financial resources you can go to town and change can occur suddenly.
I didn't look at the matrix for this scoring process but I did look at the Kansas schools and how they ranked which fell right in line with what is commonly known here for good high schools. So although the rankings might not be palatable, they are likely fairly accurate given what they are measuring.
After 28 years in public ed and 4 in private I am a big proponent of private. Of course, my private schools have been Private Christian as well which makes a difference. That is not to say we pick and chose and get only the bright kids - simply not true. The federal government under this administration has gone after the states with strong voucher systems. See Louisiana among others. In America we have compulsory school attendance until age 16 when parents can sign you out and 18 when you can sign yourself out. What that means is if it is compulsory then the state has to pay for it. It gets messy with the church and state thing when tax dollars go to a private church school. Most privates do not want public money because there would be strings attached - there always are.
Just because the Nebraska schools did not make the list doesn't mean they are bad, just did not meet the criteria the study looks for. I would look at my school and see what it needs to do to get better in this area as it does reflect on the system. Charter schools are not bad, they are in fact good in my opinion but not perfect. Teachers are some of the hardest working people I know. They put up with a ton of crap every day and keep coming back.
Some good points made above. I don't know where Common Core (CC) is in Nebraska but in Kansas this will be the first year of having something close to a valid test for it. It has been taught for several years but it always takes several years to build the tests. If you ever want to do something boring go to a seminar on standardized test development - gender bias, racial bias, socio-economic bias, etc, etc, etc. Nearly impossible to write the perfect test. This is kind of a transition year for test makers from the old system of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to CC. There is no doctoring of the tests really unless you flat out cheat which can be done but the reality is you eventually will be found out.
Charter Schools are good in my opinion although I have never worked at one. They generally have a focus in a key area - industrial, technology, music, arts, etc. I have been an administrator in private Christian schools for the last four years, and in fact helped start a new Classical Christian school this year. There are multiple Classical Charter Schools popping up across the country. There are generally waiting lists and it is competitive to get into many Charter schools (I won't say all as I don't know for certain). They do get to pick and chose who they take in. Through the selection process, small class sizes, focused curriculum, lots of structure and generally more money, these schools do well. Some states, New York, are shutting them down - why I don't know aside the unions are not as strong in them. Those students do have to perform well on standardized tests to merit the school being there. And yes, they do attract the better teachers as a whole because of the structure. I agree with what was said above about the social structure but that is not a guarantee. Having means naturally leads to more exposure to the world of education outside of books and a classroom but it does not make thinkers and doers of everyone.
I heard some speakers several years ago from Florida and they were making sweeping changes and I have heard they turned things around quickly there. I know for a fact, in a small to medium size school, which I have worked in, you can change things very quickly - 2-3 years easily. If the state is very involved and you have financial resources you can go to town and change can occur suddenly.
I didn't look at the matrix for this scoring process but I did look at the Kansas schools and how they ranked which fell right in line with what is commonly known here for good high schools. So although the rankings might not be palatable, they are likely fairly accurate given what they are measuring.
After 28 years in public ed and 4 in private I am a big proponent of private. Of course, my private schools have been Private Christian as well which makes a difference. That is not to say we pick and chose and get only the bright kids - simply not true. The federal government under this administration has gone after the states with strong voucher systems. See Louisiana among others. In America we have compulsory school attendance until age 16 when parents can sign you out and 18 when you can sign yourself out. What that means is if it is compulsory then the state has to pay for it. It gets messy with the church and state thing when tax dollars go to a private church school. Most privates do not want public money because there would be strings attached - there always are.
Just because the Nebraska schools did not make the list doesn't mean they are bad, just did not meet the criteria the study looks for. I would look at my school and see what it needs to do to get better in this area as it does reflect on the system. Charter schools are not bad, they are in fact good in my opinion but not perfect. Teachers are some of the hardest working people I know. They put up with a ton of crap every day and keep coming back.
I'm not sure in this case but most of these studies are tailored to fit some agenda. They go cherry pick some stats to prove a point while ignoring others.
NCLB, common core etc. ha
These are the standards of today's educational systems. Whatever happened to the 3 R's?
These are the standards of today's educational systems. Whatever happened to the 3 R's?
When testing matches what is being taught, scores tend to increase.
For example, if you can't do common core math, (but can do it the old way just fine) your test scores are going to be dramatically lower.
Finally, Increased test scores are not always indicative of better education. Those increased test scores have a far bigger cause/effect relationship on political and budgeting issues than they do on quality of education.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
So, I looked up educatenebraska.org. They say lots of nice things about their mission, values, goals, etc. But, if you read deeper, it is an organization formed and funded to lobby for enabling legislation for charter schools. So, take its citation to the study for what its worth. Nebraska has very good public high schools for the most part. The fact that they don't meet someone else's notion of what a gold medal school ought to accomplish, doesn't detract from that. And, in response to the comment about whether our private schools would be gold - probably not if you read the standards. You are thinking in terms of turning out high-achieving students well-prepared to pursue higher education. That's not exactly what is being measured by the report.
I live in an area where charter schools are popular and I absolutely loathe them and the effect they have on public schools. My son was diagnosed with a learning disability and was given special accommodations at his primary school. We like his school but due to the location of our home relative to the school (which is his neighborhood school despite being miles away) decided to enroll him in a newly built charter school two blocks away (more on that in a bit). The charter school had an enrollment lottery and a no-descrimination policy so we felt good about the change. My son was selected to enroll and we completed the enrollment procedures. Two months before the start of the year we received a call from the school saying our son could not attends because they couldn't accommodate him with his disibilty. We voiced our anger over the fact that their stated policy was that any child could attend and be accommodated, but were met with an explanation that they hadn't the funds to hire the right staff to meet his needs. Obvious BS.
It always made us wonder why the community needed another charter school when our neighborhood didn't have a local primary school. We found out that the location had always been slated for a public school, but the funds to build it were unavailable. The charter schools, apparently better funded, swooped in and built there instead, leaving the neighborhood without a public school.
If I had my way I would convert all the charter schools into regular public schools.
It always made us wonder why the community needed another charter school when our neighborhood didn't have a local primary school. We found out that the location had always been slated for a public school, but the funds to build it were unavailable. The charter schools, apparently better funded, swooped in and built there instead, leaving the neighborhood without a public school.
If I had my way I would convert all the charter schools into regular public schools.
While I certainly don't like hearing about what happened to your son and your family, I still know there are many students who have found a better education at both charter schools and public schools because of their existence. Perhaps a voucher system would have helped in this situation? Not sure where you live or what the rules are there. But more competition in educational choice and parental freedom with school choice combined with tax funds will lead to all schools stepping up their game, including public schools. I'm not saying this is what you think, but many people confuse support for charter schools with desire to eliminate traditional public schools. With correct funding options both still exist and improve. Competition built this nation and increases our standard of living...why can't we try the same with education especially considering our reported lagging results when compared to some other nations.
You stand 100% correct. Actually stupid statement . Just Reacting without thinking.
It sounds as if you were initially excited about the Charter school prior to their change of heart. I don't know the set up they had or the area they were focusing on but this does not surprise me. I unfortunately, as Headmaster of a private christian school, had to tell parents that our school is not a good fit for them due to several reasons. All special needs students are not the same. In KS for instance, speech, LD, BD, and gifted are all in the same category of special education but far from the same in the services required to help the student succeed. If a student needs more than we can offer without hiring additional people then I have to say no in the best interests of the student, not the school. We just do not have the resources for these services.
There are a great number of misunderstandings of public, charter and private schools so I won't attempt to discuss them. I do believe competition makes schools better. If you want to see the education model that was brought to American, take a look at Boston Latin School http://www.bls.org/. The oldest school in America and it is still going strong. Go to the top right menu and take a look at the Alumni of this school - it will blow you away. We have managed to take what worked and find a way to work all around it.
One thing I have learned after 32 years is that there is no one single way to do things but there are proven methods of success but we seem to ignore them regularly.
What is the driving time and distance on those miles?
It's probably just me but if the school is providing exactly what my child needed I don't think I would gamble on the next school having the same level of expertise. I'm no champion of teachers but I do know one organization is not the same as the next and it's mostly because the team at one location is clicking on all cylinders.
I would disagree. Considering our population I would argue we do well. Our avg Omaha area and neb state test scores beat national avgs. It's a demographics issue too. take out inner city crime ridden areas out of equation and public schools would look like they are doing an admirable job.
But when you still have so many kids running or hiding from gunshots concerned more about living to next day than schoolwork it's a huge uphill battle.
Sad reality the left who run our education system won't admit is breakdown of family and what parents do to educate their kids outside of school mean so much every bit if not more important.
Public schools can NEVER fix and replace bad parenting and broken homes with crime. Charter private maybe never our liberal public school systems though.
Nebraska ranked 17th in the nation in a poll last year using a different set of criteria and that is lower than where we wind up most years.
Many charter schools have run into financial trouble and have higher expulsion rates. Like private schools, they can kick out under performing students without a hearing-- sending those kids to... guess where? Public schools.
While I'm not saying this doesn't happen at some schools, I think people overestimate how much it actually does happen. In fact, you'd be surprised how many former public school "delinquents" end up at private schools.
The problem with people's logic in regards to private, or parochial schools is that everyone thinks they operate like a Mount Michael or elite school and drop all those who don't measure up. It's simply not true. Most, and I mean most, don't have that luxury even if they wanted to, and believe me most of them don't want to and are in it for the right reasons. And public schools can kick kids out, too. And they do. And they should. What people need to understand is that often times kids get 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances, and then a line is drawn in the sand, and if the line is crossed they are gone. It happens at all schools, and it should.
One thing people underestimate is how much money it takes to operate a school. Most private schools can't pick and choose kids the way the public wants you to think--they simply can't afford it, even if you assume that they are awful people (which seems to be the case).
To be clear, I'm not suggesting I agree with this evaluation. Just an interesting starting point for discussion.
There was a study done several years ago where they polled parents in various cities and towns across America. The overwhelming number of parents expressed that they thought their schools were good or better. They then looked at statistical data such as test scores, graduation rates, etc and found that many of those same schools were in fact below or well below average. So it boiled down to the perspective or parents right or wrong but generally wrong. I suspect the same is still very much true - there are many low performing schools across the country and parents are not aware of it. I worked in a large district with multiple elementary, 2 middle and 2 high schools and I could not have told you which were good and which weren't without researching the data.
While the SES (social economic status) of kids does make a difference, it does not have to. I had a building over 30% Hispanic and we had some of the top test scores in the state under NCLB. You can't simply take the low SES students out of the equation. Yes you are correct, the family is a HUGE part of it but every state has an inner city and most are much bigger than Nebraska's.
The federal government needs to be completely out of education. Let it be done on the state and local levels. The feds are more worried about transgender, family structure, racial equality and other things rather than actual education.
How many special education teachers do private schools employ? Even large private schools cannot afford to provide such services. It's logical then that kids with learning disabilities wind up at public schools or attend private schools but go to nearby public schools for support services. In any case, when testing comes around those kids are tested at public schools and count toward that schools' rating. Something to consider when comparing apples to oranges.
educatenebraska is a charter school mouthpiece, and I wouldn't believe a word they say. If McDonalds started selling prepackaged lunches to school districts, and then warned parents about the dangers of local lunch ladies, would you believe them?
I live in the capital of charter schools: Texas. The abandoned bowling alley near my house is now a charter school. The abandoned warehouse down another street. Charter school. Austin has a charter school in about every strip mall and light industrial park you can shake a stick at. Texas loves their charters schools, because public education is for the Commies! (Billions in federal highway dollars, big military bases, and huge subsidies for the oil industry...uh, not so much...)
Charter schools are publicly-funded, privately-run schools that compete with normal public schools for resources and students. Well, what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, the for-profit companies that run these schools aren't doing it to better society, they're doing it because it means big bucks for their shareholders.
The first thing the charter schools do is hire a bunch of recent graduates and people who have degrees in something other than education. Partnered with lower teacher certification standards, they pay low wages and ignore high turnover rates. They then choose the cheapest location possible regardless of suitability, like a warehouse or abandoned grocery store. The money saved is exported to some out-of-state corporation, rather than reinvested in the community.
The students do about as well, but no better, than the public schools on standardized tests, because that is what they focus on. Of course, in places like Texas, the charter schools don't have to publish their testing results. In fact, they operate with very little oversight at all. Parents are kept in the dark, which is strange, because "parental choice" is a big part of their marketing scheme.
Nebraska has been targeted by the charter school lobbyists, and my advice is that you resist. There will be no cost savings, the students will fare no better, and the public school district will suffer. The only tangible result will be that teaching will no longer be a decent way to earn a living. Which is fine, if you hate the middle class.
I live in the capital of charter schools: Texas. The abandoned bowling alley near my house is now a charter school. The abandoned warehouse down another street. Charter school. Austin has a charter school in about every strip mall and light industrial park you can shake a stick at. Texas loves their charters schools, because public education is for the Commies! (Billions in federal highway dollars, big military bases, and huge subsidies for the oil industry...uh, not so much...)
Charter schools are publicly-funded, privately-run schools that compete with normal public schools for resources and students. Well, what's wrong with that, you ask? Well, the for-profit companies that run these schools aren't doing it to better society, they're doing it because it means big bucks for their shareholders.
The first thing the charter schools do is hire a bunch of recent graduates and people who have degrees in something other than education. Partnered with lower teacher certification standards, they pay low wages and ignore high turnover rates. They then choose the cheapest location possible regardless of suitability, like a warehouse or abandoned grocery store. The money saved is exported to some out-of-state corporation, rather than reinvested in the community.
The students do about as well, but no better, than the public schools on standardized tests, because that is what they focus on. Of course, in places like Texas, the charter schools don't have to publish their testing results. In fact, they operate with very little oversight at all. Parents are kept in the dark, which is strange, because "parental choice" is a big part of their marketing scheme.
Nebraska has been targeted by the charter school lobbyists, and my advice is that you resist. There will be no cost savings, the students will fare no better, and the public school district will suffer. The only tangible result will be that teaching will no longer be a decent way to earn a living. Which is fine, if you hate the middle class.
I really wanted to like this comment because in general I do agree with it. But there are systematic practices, processes, and policies that can handicap institutions.
Not sure if it is a good direct comparison, but I'd liken it to regulated vs. deregulated utilities. Proponents of deregulation will cite business efficiencies leading to lower initial costs, but there's a darn good chance that in the long term the customers will be hosed on rates compared to had they maintained a regulated system. And like others said, the profits get shipped away to a corporation rather than reinvested in the community.
Are there problems with the educational system in the US? Sure, and those problems aren't the same from one district to another. Charter schools may be the right solution for one area but the wrong one for another. The charter school corporations need growth to satisfy stakeholders, so to them charter schools are "right" for any district, obviously.
