Talk:Charter schools in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Untitled[edit]

Available to read: Archive 1

Article on TX charter schools[edit]

See: Radcliffe, Jennifer "Charter schools on the chopping block?" Houston Chronicle. March 20, 2007. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This work generally finds[edit]

I edited the section entitled "Learning Gains Studies." Whoever wrote the section claims that "this work generally finds that charter schools outperform traditional schools," but only provides citations for four (randomly selected, I presume) papers. Until you provide a meta-analysis that shows what this work "generally finds," I've changed the wording to reflect the uncertainty of the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandergreenb (talkcontribs) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The original phrasing benefited from a rephrase, as it seemed to suggest that these studies are conclusive without offering substantive sources to prove this. I don't think this kind of evidence exists, so this edit was very poignant overall. Gmschnei (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A criticism or a compliment?[edit]

The description under the subheading "Too much power for teachers and parents" does not appear to explain why it is not beneficial to give more power to parents and teachers. More info is needed. Otherwise, maybe it would be better to move that section to another section such as "Structure and Characteristics." mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Stanford study on charters[edit]

SPELLING ERROR ON CHART: The graphic chart for the Stanford U study misspells "performance" in the graphic as PERFORMACE.69.126.88.80 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

FIX THE SPELLING ERROR ON THE CHART! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.85.7 (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the numbers in the CREDO study, if 46% of charters are the same as public schools, 17% better and 37% worse, does that mean Charters have an overall net result of being 74% worse than public schools (or in other words, only 26% as good as public schools)? Did I do something wrong because it seems much too negative. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, they're just dumb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.161.38 (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
46% + 37% is 83% and this would only be the amount that are worse if you consider those that are the same to be worse. 26% are not the amount that are "as good" as public schools according to this study. They are the amount that are better.--Jorfer (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually I answered the question to myself a while ago. If we take we do 37%-17% (worse - better) to get a net improvement of 20% and add it to the 46% that are as good, we find that charters are 66% as good as public schools. Obviously based on the figures charters are overall worse. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. The percentages are the number of charter schools that are better than, or the same as, or worse than public schools, and not the amount better. If a charter school does 1% better than public schools, than it would go in that 17% while a charter school that does 50% worse would go in the 37%. So you can't draw any conclusions about how much better or worse charter schools do compared to public schools. You can say that 83% are do no better than public schools, and/or that 54% do no worse than public schools, but that's about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschart (talkcontribs) 19:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Joravsky- Chicago Reader[edit]

Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader has written some interesting critiques of local charters... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scroblachoir (talkcontribs) 00:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Chocha power"?[edit]

I have no idea what chocha power is, but I imagine it is a defacement. In any case, this statement should be corrected or barring that, clairified. Unit335 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. TJRC (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

More charters[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

origin[edit]

Shouldn't the introduction make it clear that Charter schools are an American term for a private school that receives some government funding? The concept goes under different names in other countries.124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

reference replacement[edit]

Recommend replacing dead reference link #59 with http://www.aft.org/issues/schoolchoice/charters/ Gprobins (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Entry needs an extensive rewrite[edit]

I'm a charter school noob, but even I can tell this article needs a major rewrite. The section about the United States, in particular, meanders aimlessly. Much of it could be removed without lowering the article's information content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffme (talkcontribs) 22:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent addition to external links[edit]

A couple of days ago Betsaari (talk · contribs) added two links to the "External links" section. I subsequently removed them, followed by a revert of my removal.

From what I can tell, the two links provided are to two essays written by the user adding them. I think they are an overly promotional addition to this article's external links, and inappropriate per WP:ELNO and WP:NOT. Granted, the "Further reading"-section, as it currently stands, could use a fair bit of pruning. But that is no argument in favour of adding links to these two articles. Gabbe (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

CREDO Bar Graph on Charter Schools[edit]

I’ve removed the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charter_School_Performance_Study.svg due to problems with its factual accuracy. I’d fully support its return if the image can be corrected to not overstate the claims of the source material to the point of it being POV or original research.

First off, charter schools are ‘’’public schools’’’, so the labels used are nonsensically contrasting the identical. The actuate term used in the CREDO source material is traditional public school (TPS).

Secondly, and more importantly, it misrepresents the source data from page 44, table 9, labeled: “Table 9: Market Fixed Effects – Percentage of Charter Schools by Significance”. The CREDO study repeatedly states that it is not comparing charter schools to any actual traditional publics schools, but rather it’s comparing charter schools to heuristically adjusted virtual TPS. In other words, it’s comparing charter schools to purely theoretical schools, these are not public schools that actually exist, however, the bar graph labels give this impression. The source material does not make the claims made in this bar graph. Understanding this distinction is vital, as that portion of the study’s validly is unpinned by the assumption that educational performance gains scale equally and linearly at all levels and demographics. As this is a controversial assumption, if this is incorrect then the demographic virtual modeling adjustment would also be inaccurate.

Source Material: http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf

“The analysis employs a statistical technique, fixed effects, which is applied to each pair of charter and virtual schools to remove all the effects that are shared and constant over time. The average growth of students in each charter school is then computed relative to the average results of their virtual twins.” –page 43

“This finding says nothing about how well the local traditional schools are doing; it merely assesses the expectation that whatever the level, charters serving the same population should produce results at the same level.” –page 44 Jadon (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


I appreciate the concern but a few things should be said. First, that is how the study labels the schools, as "public" and "charter" meaning we need to stick that phrasing in order to fulfill NPOV. Second, while they may not be "real" schools, the study did base it off of the real performance of respective pupils and counted it as such. Again, it was the study's conclusion based on its methodology.
But more importantly, how the findings are discussed is exactly how reliable sources report on it:
New York Times
That is the clear message of continuing analysis from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, which tracks student performance in 25 states. In 2009, its large-scale study showed that only 17 percent of charter schools provided a better education than traditional schools, and 37 percent actually offered children a worse education.
Washington Post
I am writing about the report because it is going to be cited in the school reform debate, as previous CREDO reports have been, especially the 2009 report that showed that only 17 percent of charter schools across the board get better test scores than traditional schools.
Seeing as how even mainstream sources use that terminology there is no problem with the image. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sentence in 2nd paragraph is unclear[edit]

The following sentence in the second paragraph appears to be in reference to some timeframe or other modifier but no such content exists. This should either be rewritten\clarified or removed.--Aleding (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"Over 600 new public charter schools (7%) opened, serving an additional 288,000 students (13%), totaling 2.5 million students."

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Charter schools in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bias favoring Charter Schools[edit]

This article has a strong bias in favor of charter schools. Positively presents data from studies that support charter schools and downplays sources that have an unfavorable view of charter schools. Examples:

The article is structured with case studies that provide evidence for charter schools, but seem to ignore or not seek any expansion of counter evidence, even if such counter evidence is used in studies that are cited across the article. It seems to pick and choose based on what is necessary to justify a positive outlook on charter schools, especially in "Local evaluations of charter schools." Gmschnei (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Charter schools in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Local evaluations of charter schools[edit]

The structure of this portion of the article is strange. Why does it reference only two local evaluations as pointing to how urban charter schools in two districts can outperform public schools? This portion of the article would do well to represent both sides of the debate, in that it currently only evaluates two case studies and treats them as if there is no counter evidence. This CREDO report that is referenced throughout the article lists 11 cases in which students learned less than there peers in math and 10 cases where they learned less in reading. Overall, this portion would do well to be more comprehensive and actually a broader outlook on this discussion, rather than limiting it to two studies that seem to offer confirmation bias. Gmschnei (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Racial segregation[edit]

The "Criticism" portion of article talks about "Racial segregation," but the phrasing does not at all capture the central point of the critique. In discussing the central point of the UCLA article, the criticism should address how "charter school enrollments often do not match their surrounding communities." It should also cite the study itself and not a UCLA Newsroom press release.Gmschnei (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)