Slashdot Mirror
Tech Billionaire-Backed Charter School Under Fire In Chicago
theodp writes "'As a nonprofit venture philanthropy firm,' boasts the billionaire-backed NewSchools Venture Fund, 'we raise philanthropic capital from both individual and institutional investors, and then use those funds to support education entrepreneurs who are transforming public education.' One recipient of the NewSchools' largesse is The Noble Network of Charter Schools, which received a $5,300,000 NewSchools 'investment', as well as a $1,425,000 grant from NewSchools donor Bill Gates. One way that Noble Street College Prep has been transforming education, reports the Chicago Tribune, is by making students pay the price — literally — for breaking the smallest of rules (sample infractions). Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel defended Noble after a FOIA filing revealed the charter collected almost $190,000 in discipline 'fees' — not 'fines' — last year from its mostly low-income students, saying the ironically exempt-from-most-district-rules charter school gets 'incredible' results and parents don't have to send their children there. Beyond the Noble case, some are asking a bigger question: Should billionaires rule our schools?"
Should billionaires rule our schools?
No, but I don't think they are (well, at least no more than they rule everything else). The summary makes two HUGE jumps here. It starts by saying that the NewSchools Venture Fund is giving grants to charter schools. Then it attempts to smear the very idea by criticizing one particular practice of one particular group of charter schools in Chicago. Then it makes an even bigger jump by equating this with billionaires "ruling" our schools (as if individual donors to this fund created this one controversial policy, or even had any idea that it existed). I think that whoever wrote this summary is being unfairly critical of charter schools, and even more unfair to those rich donors who are actually *trying* to help (as opposed to those who just hoard their money and or just their wealth to buy new Ferraris).
In an era where the rich are able to get by paying so few taxes in the U.S., I think that those who still CHOOSE to help our ailing schools should be praised, not chastised, for the policies of one particular charter school (and I don't even find their policy that egregious in the first place). It's nice to know that not *all* rich people are just greedy pricks who would say "fuck all" to the poor.
Ideally, the U.S. would have a system where this kind of charity isn't necessary in the first place. But until that day, I don't think we should turn away any help just because it comes from Bill Gates.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Chewing gum.
Carrying visible “flaming or hot chips.’’
Tardy to class more than 3 minutes.
Forgetting your belt.
Carrying a Sharpie or other permanent marker.
Forgetting to place quotation marks around another writer’s words.
Having visible Red Bull, other energy drinks or pop.
Not wearing dress pants or the school shirt.
What's the problem here? These seem pretty straightforward and hard to fuck up, less the Tardy to class one, but you know what? A lot of workplaces aren't cool with that either. I think it's not a bad thing.
If paying these fines is a problem, then make sure you don't get hit with them.
If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
We've got enough problems in the US with the systems currently under corporate influence. Why give them another?
Govt and corps have merged, so all public schools are already under corporate dominance. The non-public schools aka private schools are also corporate controlled by definition. Not seeing the issue here.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Students at Noble schools receive demerits for various infractions -- four for having a cellphone or one for untied shoelaces. Four demerits within a two-week period earn them a detention and $5 fine. Students who get 12 detentions in a year must attend a summer behavior class that costs $140.
Five dollars for four demerits appears reasonable. Do the students get a warning and then a demerit?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I went to Missouri Military Academy. Although we didn't have to pay fines, sorry fees, there were a ton of different rules that would get you in trouble. Some demerits were worth more than others. For each point we got the joy and pleasure of marching in a square for 15 min/per demerit. Or 30 min of study hall, depending on the day, or holding an 8 lbs rife straight out for 5 min. The only thing we had to pay with was our free time. In a non boarding school situation money is the only thing you've got to work with, and it has the effect of getting the parent involved as well, since they are paying. I'm sure life isn't good for the kids when mom and dad get a bill for $X and the kid get to spend his time at home working it off. It's looks like the cost of the demerits are fairly cheap, less than a pack of off brand smokes. So it's not like people are getting saddled with huge costs. Sure the list of demerits seems pretty nit picky, but I've experienced worse. "Not sitting up straight, Running in front of the admin building, Gigline not straight." I'm glad some schools out there are trying something different, esp if it seems to be working.
I dislike the fines, but this is EXACTLY the way things like this should be tried out. Try things at relatively small scale and on a population that volunteers for it. This is exactly the way medical research is carried out. If you want the cancer treatment that looks promising, but might not actually work, you have to volunteer to get it and it's available to a limited number of people.
Contrast this with what we usually do: entire school districts, or worse, entire states, or MUCH worse, the whole country tries some harebrained scheme, or even some halfway decent sounding scheme, which turns out to have real problems. Take No Child Left Behind, for example. Testing to measure performance sounds like a really good idea. Could we perhaps have tried it out on a smaller group than the whole country in order to find out it doesn't work?
*I* don't like the idea, but my kids aren't going there. Leave them alone unless there's sufficient data to prove this performs worse than the default.
Incredibly good, I assume.
In evaluating the school, I think you have to first judge how well it is serving the students and families. Then things like the welfare of the teachers and the quality of the facilities. The billionaire connection is rather far down the list of things that I would be concerned about.
Certainly to the teacher's unions, any movement toward charter schools, homeschooling, vouchers, etc. is an "attack on public education". Fortunately, many people (read: parents) have the best interests of the students at heart and recognize when either public institutions or individuals within public institutions are failing to serve that prime objective. The cries of "racism" are typical of the left whenever the money isn't flowing their way, whether or not it has anything to do with race intrinsically.
Step 1: Give schools millions so they can provide inexpensive education to poor kids and so indirectly give millions to poor kids
Step 2: Impose trivial fines sufficient to get parents attention focused on educational problems
Step 3: Smarter and more responsible kids with involved parents.
Works for me.
The best correlation of student success is parental interest in their kids education. I come from immigrant family were this was a factor. I and my brothers all received at least one ivy league degree. I've seen poor immigrants from east Europe and Asia do well even when the family did not have a lot of money. Unfortunately the two largest minority groups in the USA do not have lots of family interest in education. They dont do as well even when their schools are well funded.
In the real world, fine's are much more.
Improper use of an apostrophe. $50 fine and 20 points from Gryffindor.
Actual, better pretty much any group than Public Sector Unions.
Fix the System:
1. Triple every teacher's salary
2. Eliminate Collective Bargaining and Tenure, replacing with individually negotiated Employment Contracts with a maximum 3-year term.
3. Teachers without Employment Contracts have their salaries available for merit-based increase biennially.
3. Eliminate Pensions.
In short, make teachers' jobs like most every other valued job for which you want constant strong competition among skilled employees and potential employees.
Students have to be careful carrying a Sharpie, they could get cut!
If you have seen the sheer amount of graffiti in your average inner city school, you would understand that this rule is not as silly as it sounds. If you want to create a positive educational environment, one of the first steps is not having gang tags splayed on every open surface in your school.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
So you're fine with private organizations imposing fines on a whim?
It is troubling that we have to get to this to impose discipline, and it sure raises a few eyebrows. But on a whim? They aren't. These are infractions. Yes, not having your shirt buttoned or chewing gum, those are behavioral infractions. Fining over them can be argued to be questionable, but flagging these kind of things as infractions is perfectly reasonable. You need to get off your cornbread boundaries and visit other countries with more successful education systems than ours - wearing a proper school uniform is typically one of their common features. There are many reasons why this is so, and it is not rocket science why it works and why it is necessary.
And that a school teaches its students to submit to such arbitrary authority?
It's called discipline, something that apparently you were never exposed to during your primary and secondary education.
My SO works in the DC office responsible for training the evaluators who assess teachers in the classroom. I don't know exactly how it worked under Rhee, but I do know the way it works now... about half of teacher evaluations are based on standardized test scores, and the other half is based on in-class observation by professional evaluators.
No one is going to argue that teachers can overcome the strong influences of parental involvement and other exogenous factors. However, of the things that can be dealt with in the school, teacher quality is likely the most important. If year after year you have a teacher whose students show no improvement at all and there are other teachers in the same school (and even same subject) who students do show improvement, what do you do?
There are in fact efforts to identify high quality teachers and disseminate their practices to the rest of the teaching population (this was my SO's last work project), so it's not as if there are no resources going into actually improving the quality of teachers in the classroom. However, the fact remains that in many cases you have teachers who may very well be veterans of the classroom but who frankly aren't all that good at their job. Tenure for primary and secondary teachers in this day and age doesn't make sense - you need to be able to fire poor performers.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I agree with the gist of what you are saying.
Growing up, I studied in schools which were fairly strict (including uniforms), where you'd be punished if your shoe was not polished well. Looking back, that sense of discipline has served me well in everything I do.
I think parenting also plays a role, but it's more of a case of values: good parents imbibe their children with fundamental values around work ethics, integrity, honesty, the value of hard work, good education and ambition. To an extent, friends and family also play a role in how children perceive this.
Both my parents are extremely well educated, but my Mom decided to stay at home to take care of me when I was born, dropping her doctoral studies. In a way, that sense of parental responsibility speaks volumes and it is hard not to be raised with a similar sense of responsibility when your parents continuously demonstrate it.
Now, I am sure there is also an element of nature vs. nurture, but those seem few and far between.
I find that education today has become largely impersonal, and the vast majority of the teachers and the parents don't seem to have a personal, vested interest in individuals. They both look to the system, and the system as a whole is a joke.
I've heard that one of the reasons kids from Asian families do well in education is because culturally, the family and friends push education, and those values get absorbed. You see this to an extent with a lot of Jewish families, as well, where education and achievement is pushed. But you only mostly see it in immigrant and first generation families -- once they get acclimatized, those values slowly fade away.
Things like financial penalties are basically an attempt at getting parents involved and interested in a child's education, but that is clearly not working well enough. Unless people take a genuine interest in education all around (including family, friends, and lastly, the teachers), this problem is not going to be fixed.
I think you're sort of on the right track. The problem is how much do we respect the students' ability and right to informed consent? Do the students' have a voice at all, do they deserve one, and for that matter, how informed are the parents going into these experiments? This is true of both large and small project, and solutions are hard to come by, which is part of the issue with the snails pace of educational reform.
NCLB isn't a new idea, in fact, that isn't even the real name. It is actually a set of additional rules for Title 1 funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1965. Title 1 federal funds have had various stipulations through the years, and the current AYP goals on annual tests are just the latest. There are other sections, also, like Title 3, which deals with funds for language learners. The federal government can't influence educational policy directly, so they gather up as much money as they can, and then attach as many strings as they can, so that eventually federal policy becomes mandated at the local level. Who does this affect the most? The least funded schools in low socioeconomic areas. Wealthy school districts don't need Title 1 money, and have always been able to just tell the feds to screw off.
But since not all schools are funded the same way (in California, look at the "Basic aid" vs. "Revenue Limited" issue which ensures the disparity) the federal money is very, very important to some districts. In fact, my current position is funded entirely through federal funding sources. Some here (actually many, having read through the comments) would say I'm exactly the kind of person who is part of the problem with public education and spending. I work out of the district office as a technology coach for integration with curriculum and teacher training, as well as a bulk of the data collection and analysis for student performance. Here's a quick hint: if you make test scores and data more and more important to schools, they will hire more and more statisticians and administrative analysts.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I get that people all over aren't happy with what schools are doing and how much they cost, but I also don't think people understand how complicated it all is, and how impossible it is to deliver on all the expectations with a fraction of the money. It wears me out a bit.