Way, way back in the early 1980's a "reformed" conman was interviewed on the David Letterman Show. He may have written a book about his various crimes but I really can't remember. What I do remember is that he was very interesting to listen to.
For his first "job" as a professional conman he rented a cheap looking security guard's uniform and a sturdy looking strong box. He knew that a dozen or so stores and restaurants dropped off their money at an after hours bank deposit box so he taped an "Out Of Order" sign to the deposit door and stood there for an hour or so next to his box. He said that he was terrified that the first person to come along would either beat him up or call the police. Much to his surprise and relief, most of the store and restaurant managers simply looked at the Out Of Order sign, looked at him, and dutifully dropped their money into his box.
It's tempting to react to such stories by asking how people can be so stupid. Yes, some people really are stupid but that's not what makes confidence tricks work. He said that after a few months of dreaming up and carrying out similar crimes he began to divide his potential victims into two distinct groups.
Group One consisted of people who appeared to be relatively unsuccessful in life. They drove old cars, wore plain looking clothes, and worked boring, low paying jobs. He claimed that it was very hard to gain their confidence and subsequently failed to make much money by tricking them. These people were accustomed to being disappointed with false promises and instinctively avoided them. They may not have known how the trick worked, but they knew from experience that no one outside of their inner circle of close friends was going to do anything for them.
Group Two consisted of people who were accustomed to believing that the world was a pretty good place where hard work and education paid off. The business managers who blindly trusted their day's receipts to a 20 year old in an ill fitting uniform thought of themselves as successful. They decided who to hire and fire, how to run their business, and of course, they enjoyed the highest salary. They believed in the system and subsequently, they could be tricked into believing almost anything.
You're wondering about those charter schools...
There are private schools for those who can pay for them. Private schools do not have to accept your son or daughter simply because you have lots of money. Like colleges and universities, they can cherry pick the brightest, most well behaved, most mentally stable students and "just say no" to everyone else. Nancy Reagan was referring to drugs when she said that but the principle is the same. Private schools can say no to any student they consider to be beneath their lofty standards or otherwise harmful and embarrassing to their image.
Public schools are where you go if you belong in the "everyone else" category. Public schools are funded by an unpredictable mixture of local, state, and federal taxes. Some schools seem to have money blowing down the hallways one year and then lay off teachers the next. If public schools were listed on the stock market they'd be avoided because of their economically chaotic behavior. As far as the students go, you can be dumber than a bag of donuts and more violent than a rabid dog and you'll still be welcomed with open arms.
Then there are charter schools which appear to be neither fish nor fowl. From what I've read, they generally accept just about anyone, good, bad, or ugly. Most of their students come from the population group that would normally attend public school. And like public schools they receive the majority of their funding from the local public school budget.
But...
Correct me if I'm wrong but when October rolls around they swiftly deselect or unenroll or otherwise eject a significant portion of their students, most of whom are sent back to the local public school system. The parents who, like their restaurant manager equivalents expect the system to actually work. SUCKERS!!! The parents are told by the school that their child has needs that the charter school simply isn't equipped to handle. I suspect they know who will be tossed to the curb when they accept them but I doubt anyone can prove it.
Here's how I'm going to connect my conman story to the normal business practices of charter schools...
They can send your child back to the public school system, but they don't have to send any of the funding back with him. SUCKERS!!!
This is pure genius. The public is conned into believing that charter schools are some sort of wonderful alternative when in reality, they are just sucking money out of the public's pockets.
G-E-N-I-U-S
You obviously don't work at a charter school.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. I don't work in a charter school.
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote above, "Correct me if I'm wrong."
I don't have much of an ego so I'm quite willing to admit that I've gotten my facts wrong. But...my critics have to either supply me with a link or otherwise provide me with facts that counter the claims I made above.
More than a few times something I thought I knew turned out to be wrong. But the fact that someone doesn't agree with me is not the same as being wrong. In fact, when someone claims that I'm wrong and then provides no follow up, I usually take that as a sign that I'm right.
"Just the facts ma'am."
Another flamer strafes the Elephant and hurriedly flies off, never to be heard from again.
ReplyDeleteTell me about Charter Schools.
Just the facts ma'am.
Well, if you had spent any time in a charter school you’d see that your claim that we deselect the students we don’t care for or the council the ones we think can’t make it out of our school is completely false. We care about our students just as much as anyone else and want every child who enters our doors to succeed. Those of you who make issues about charter school attrition rates don’t understand, or choose to ignore the real reasons behind the numbers.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens in October of every year is that many students we enroll start to miss their old environment, and miss their old friends back in the public schools they come from. We always council our students to stay with us, and give their new home a fair chance. We do what we can to help them adjust and to develop new friendships. However, for many students and families, there is just too much adjustment involved so better to make an early exit back to familiar territory than not. This is a difficult choice for many and shouldn’t be taken lightly.
Also, the charter environment is much different than what many are used to and frankly it’s not the best fit for everyone. We tend to have smaller classes, student uniforms, and in many cases higher academic standards than students and families are accustomed to. Again for many, this is not the environment they want once they experience it firsthand. The same culture that the public schools struggle with time and time again, with families not interested in education, shortsightedness, and lack of parental support affect us just as much. Parents are more than happy to let their children go back to the public school than try to counsel their children to do the extra work their not used to.
In addition, there are other facts that affect these numbers as well. Charter schools receive less money per student from the state than their sending districts. Although I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, the New Bedford charters receive about $11,000 per student from the state. The New Bedford public schools receive over $13,000, plus receive extra money for facilities and special education that charters are not eligible for. This often translates to charters being in older facilities and not being able to offer the same kind of extracurricular activities offered in their sending districts. If a student wants to play in a band or on a sports team we often find them leaving because they miss these activities as well.
The other fact that seems to never get any press is that the sending districts get reimbursed for every student they lose to charter schools. Massachusetts reimburses the sending cities and towns 100% of the per pupil costs for the first year, and 25% for the next 5 years. That’s 225% reimbursement of funds for every student the sending public schools are no longer teaching. The argument that we’re robbing the districts of money is a much distorted one indeed. Our student counts are also reported every quarter to the state so if a student drops out we lose the funding for them the very next quarter.
Another fact that often gets no attention is that charter schools cannot add students to their roster after the midpoint of their grade span. So for instance if a charter serves the grades 5-12 (8 cohorts) then the school cannot enroll new students over the last 4 grades (9-12). They can only draw from their current population. This of course results in a predictable greater loss of students than their sending districts as students who move away can never be replaced by anyone who move in.
So in short, there are many reasons for student attrition but none of these serve the teacher unions arguments. So rather than tell the more complex real story they spin it by making up reasons (like we counsel out all the kids we don’t want) that suit the union’s needs.
But let’s be real now and call a spade a spade. How much issue would the teacher unions have with charter schools if they all were unionized? Certainly much less if any at all!
I'll look into the financial information you presented when I have more than a few minutes of free time. As for the number of students who return to public school after a month or so I'd like to direct your attention to the December 13, 2011 post of the NBEA weblog.
DeleteIn the Global Learning Charter School class of 2009, the 90 students who were part of that class in the 6th grade were reduced to 19 by the time they were seniors. It wouldn't violate the laws of physics, but I have difficulty believing that 71 out of 90 students either moved away, dropped out, or missed the New Bedford Public School System enough to leave what is supposed to be a superior alternative. Are these figures accurate, inaccurate, misrepresented, etc.?
Please don't just claim that they're inaccurate. Provide a link or a document or something.