Northern Davincia wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
So you'd let charter schools make up their own tests?
And because those are "good" tests and the public school ones are "bad" tests, there's no way of comparing them.
Is there any way that is going to end well?
I would let charter schools make their own tests, and parents will be the judge of quality.
I have a problem with that too. Parents who are bad judges (of anything, ie stupid) will sometimes make the wrong decision, further disadvantaging children in addition to the disadvantage of having Judge Stupid as their parent.
If they disapprove, they will take their child out of the school and send them to another one.
Which itself is bad for the child's education, as well as being unpleasant for them (probably: some kids like the attention of being "new") and this will factor into the parent's decision, biasing them against moving the kid out of a school they're doing badly in.
Charter school tests are not inherently good or bad, and neither are those of public schools, but testing itself is a troublesome measure of learning.
Well class sizes (in elementary) correlate inversely with education quality, particularly for weaker students. If the charter school continued to get funding for a while after a student left, smaller class sizes would raise their performance as a school and stop more students leaving. But where would that money come from?
Without that though, with funding per student (vouchers), students leaving would have a slight positive effect up to 25-30 (class size) but then the school would have to lay off a teacher. At which point I expect it would implode. Parents would pull their kid out, another teacher would go, and pop! In business this would be a bankruptcy, though I guess charter schools are usually non-profits?











