Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Education The Almighty Buck Government Microsoft Politics

Tech Billionaire-Backed Charter School Under Fire In Chicago 326

Posted by timothy
from the at-least-the-old-system-was-perfect dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tech Billionaire-Backed Charter School Under Fire In Chicago

Comments Filter:
  • Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)

    by vlm (69642) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:45AM (#39110419)

    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.

  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:01AM (#39110651)

    It's questionable whether running schools like a business is helpful.

    That's true, but most of the areas where these charter schools are being implemented are neighborhoods where the existing public school system has been an abysmal failure in the past. A debate over how to best change the existing system may be warranted, but it is unquestionably clear that the existing system MUST be changed. And with teacher's unions and political interests strongly invested in the existing system, sometimes charter schools are pretty much the only option for any change.

    Ideally, you wouldn't need that. A principal could just go into a failing school, fire all the bad teachers, hire better ones, and make the changes needed to make a better school. But under the existing system in many of these districts, you simply can't do that.

    You think they don't make a profit off of these charter schools?

    Well, the NewSchools Venture Fund certainly doesn't. AFAIK they're a non-profit and give grants, not loans.

  • by PlatyPaul (690601) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:24AM (#39111055) Homepage Journal
    If these are the rules, then they do warrant a detention, by definition. You disagree with these detentions. I disagree with your disagreeing. Regardless of our opinion, these are the rules.

    I strongly encourage bans on junk food in schools, and harsh punishment of potential plagiarism. If you want good behavior later, you have to encourage it.
  • by greap (1925302) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:26AM (#39111139)
    This was tried in DC with Rhee. The teachers were offered a contract which would have seen their starting salary rise from $32k to $72k with performance related bonuses capable of taking it up to $185k (previously the cap was $79k and was based on seniority). In exchange tenure, rubber rooms and seniority pay had to go and there has to be a process for firing underperforming teachers that didn't take a year. They rejected the contract, apparently keeping bad teachers is more important to them then good pay.
  • by stdarg (456557) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @12:19PM (#39111985)

    The teachers were basically being asked to agree that they could be instantly fired if their kids didn't do well on a standardized test that they had no part in creating.

    The school administrators also have no part in creating the standardized tests. It's a neutral test made by a third party.

    I agree that parental involvement is the most important factor, but teachers are fighting the wrong battle by pitting themselves against standardized tests. They will not win because their position defies common sense. Everybody understands the need to measure outcomes and the need to compare those measurements.

    The fight should be about who bears responsibility for low scores. If parents are the biggest factor, then parents should suffer for their underperforming children. If you extended this school's idea of fines for breaking rules to fines for getting bad grades, would teachers still have the same loathing of standardized tests?

  • Re:A few things (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spopepro (1302967) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @01:27PM (#39113067)

    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.

"If you ever want to get anywhere in politics, my boy, you're going to have to get a toehold in the public eye."

Working...