Charter Schools Myth Busted, But for Frugal Parents, They are Cheaper

I been tracking the demise of the whole voucher school concept, and myth for some time, but I didn’t realize how bad off the public/private charter schools were.

According to THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH:

As experts analyzed heaps of data released as part of the school report cards a few weeks ago, this much has become clear: The debate about how the charter-school movement really works - and why charters exist - has changed dramatically since the experiment began in Ohio a decade ago. "Some of the early charter advocates clearly overplayed their expectations," said Jeffrey Henig, a Columbia University professor who has written about charter schools. And when data came out, "It clearly wasn't the case that charters were blowing schools out of the water.

The "year's learning" measure, called the "value-added" rating, is new on the report cards, which use last school year's data to grade schools for the current year, and gives credit to schools that made gains even if students didn't pass required tests.

Narrowing the view to just charter schools that operate within Columbus City Schools territory, the outlook is bleak for charters. Of the city's charter schools that received a value-added rating, 59 percent showed less than a year's growth. Among the Columbus district's traditional schools, 41percent failed the year's-growth standard. . . .

Bottom line; normal public schools were 18 percent better than charter schools.

About 10,000 students attend central Ohio charter schools and virtual schools that serve only central Ohio students. About 51percent of central Ohio's 59 charter schools have failed to teach at least a year's material.

According to Jim Horn, at schoolsmatter.blogspot.com, who is tracking all the latest research:

The charter miracle schools are worse that the struggling public schools they were intended to replace. With numbers like that, one must wonder what kind bogus line Rotherham is feeding the Obama camp to make them so enthused be speed up public school conversion to charters. Oh, I forgot, the charters are 20 percent cheaper to operate, since they can hire teachers who aren't held back from teaching by such "bureaucratic barriers" as certification requirements.

As for me, the Ohio example is starting to break down the myths of charter schools, along with other studies trashing the voucher private schools myth.

I was hoping charters would experiment with newer teaching techniques and spur innovation, but it looks like the real goal is, as Jim Horn points out, a less costly system of education. That would be education on the cheap. In fact, maybe that’s how it should be promoted: Why send your child to one of those “expensive” public schools, when you can send them to a much cheaper charter schools?

I wonder which one parents would choose?