I have been thinking hard on the charter plan being pushed by Gov. Chris Christie, a retread of the tired schools choice debate that has been going on nationally and pushed by free-market zealots for years.
Gov. Christie used a (flawed) Star-Ledger special report issued earlier this week to back up his contention that school choice works:
The report obtained by The Star-Ledger compared 2010 standardized test scores for charter schools against district schools. The scores were from grades 3 through 8, and 11th grade. That data is contained in a report expected to be released today by the state Department of Education.
The newspaper analysis shows 76 percent of charter school eighth grades outpaced performance in their districts in language arts, for example, as did 68 percent of fourth-grade classes in language arts, and 58 percent of fourth-grade classes in math. At the high school level, 69 percent of schools outperformed district classes in the language arts portion of the high school proficiency exam, and 54 percent outdid district classes in math.
There are about 73 charter schools operating in New Jersey now, most in urban areas, serving varying grade levels.
Bob Braun, the Ledger’s fine columnist, reminds us that we must look at the charter numbers with a jaundiced eye. The report — later issued by Christie — did little more than prove “that the charter schools best able to exclude the neediest students got both the highest test scores,” which is something charter critics have long argued. If the best students can migrate away from urban schools, it has a residual effect on the schools left behind.
From a statistical standpoint consider this:
We have a school district with 35 kids. The median test school is 70 (the student with the 18th highest score; 17 higher and 17 lower) and the average is 70 (meaning that, when you add all scores together and you divide by the number of students you get 70). If you remove the top six students — say they average 90 — then you move the median figure downward — the median would be the 15th highest (14 higher and 14 lower). No change in results, but the median drops. Same with the average — take the top six scores out and you are left with 29 students with a 66 average without anything else changing.
Braun calls school choice another broken promise to the state’s neediest children:
School choice—that’s the latest ticket to “equal educational opportunity,” according to the governor. Finally, a solution that won’t require children to be with other children who don’t look like them. A solution that won’t require a lot more money or state effort.
But it’s not helping, either. It’s just further isolating the neediest children. Charters enroll far fewer very poor children with educational problems than do the traditional schools.
And, while a few charters might be helping a small number of inner-city children, their test scores, like those of traditional schools, still lag behind the rest of the state.
Addressing the failings of poor schools will take far more of a commitment of resources than we seem willing to provide and it will mean addressing the long-standing racial, ethnic and class segregation that has plagued this allegedly liberal state. But then, no one seems to be all that concerned with fixing things for he poorest of the poor.
- Send me an e-mail.
- Read poetry at The Subterranean.
- Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
- Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.
Hank Kalet 
By definition in \”BROKEN SCHOOLS\”, schools are broken! Even if you can find a school that apparently succeeds at educating, you WILL find that it's way too expensive. And, they get to \”cook the books\” to get good results. (Drop outs are one way of padding the numbers.)This little L libertarian would love to see real school choice. Parents need to pay for the decisions they make. One of those decisions is called \”having children\”. People have to bear the costs of decisions they make. It's unfair for them to foist the costs of their decisions on their neighbors. One of the problems is we don't have a Status of Responsibility on the West Coast to match the Statue of Liberty on the East Cost. I'd nominate San Francisco for the site! But, Sacramento would work as well.
The libertarian attitude can be summed up with: fark you, I've got mine.The drug addicted Ayn Rand applied for Social Security in spite of her hatred for SS. The social worker who visited her and her husband also said that she applied for Medicare but the Medicare part is not confirmed.Ayn Rand: \”There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.\” Except when she needed SS.Ayn Rand was an atheist and felt that religion and capitalism could not coexist. I wonder if the tea partiers know that.
No, the libertarian attitude is: You are free to do what you choose without duress. We will, voluntarily, assemble for mutual support as we see fit. No one is \”entitled\” to anything from someone else. Despite confiscatory taxes, Americans are the most generous people in the world. If we make iy \”free-er\”, they will be even MORE generous. No one is perfect. Gandhi admired Hitler. MLK had an \”interesting\” personal life. JFK and RFK were unfaithful to their marriage vows. Does that mean we forget they're inspirational moments? No, of course not. Re:SocSec If I am robbed at gun point, taking some of it back is not betraying my principles. One has to pick and choose one's battles. I maybe getting screwed but that doesn't mean I have to like it.The Tea Partiers are such a mish mash of people, who knows what they believe. I'd say they have focused on fiscal conservative issues and ignored everything else.
Gandhi quote: \”The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone.\”
You may want to scan back a little to where he admired him. You'll have to dig a little because, like most things that don't correspond with the established \”truth\”, those things get swept under the rug.
Gandhi wrote some letters to Hitler just before the outbreak of WWII begging and imploring him not to go to war. So he referred to Hitler as \”Dear Friend,\” what was he supposed to do, instead refer to him as \”Dear Jerkwad: Hey a$$hole, don't even think about going to war.\” I guess Gandhi mistakenly believed by buttering up Hitler he might change his mind. OK, that was quite silly of Gandhi.I guess you could say that Gandhi was extremely naive and misguided but I don't think he actually admired Hitler, especially after all the horrors of the war came out.Gandhi did make some racist remarks against Africans when he was in South Africa but he mellowed on these harsh opinions of black Africans and became much more inclusive as he got older. He was a much younger man when he was in South Africa. Gandhi absolutely did have some weird, crazy, stupid and off the wall ideas about what the Brits and the Jews should do in dealing with Hitler. Such as giving up and just allowing themselves to be killed. Not a good idea to say the least.On balance, I think that Gandhi did more good than harm.Ayn Rand did nothing of any value for humanity. She was all about greed and selfishness. On balance, she just gave an intellectual fig leaf and cover for greed and selfishness and she made a lack of empathy a badge of honor.
@AnonI agree Gandhi overcame his early stupidity. Wish I could mine as effectively. I just don't discount anyone as worthless or markup anyone as \”God\”. Just humans trying to find their way on the path.As far as you critique of Rand, \”selfishness\” is a virtue. \”Greed is good\”. It makes our species cooperate with each other. In a \”free market\”, no exchange is made UNLESS it's beneficial to BOTH sides. Because everyone's value and perception of value differ we need a way to ensure that everyone's needs are met. The free market performs a very complex instantaneous calculation to balance needs and wants. On a similar theme, I'd point out the studies of the relative \”charitableness\” of liberal and conservatives. Just because some one wants an \”honest accounting\”, it doesn't mean they are not charitable to their neighbor. Just look how generous liberal politicians are with their own money, but extremely \”generous\” with the taxpayer's money. ''Sorry, but it's nothing short of robbery.