How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student performance? Share Print School Organization
Jim Hull, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Public Education How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student performance? Overall, the majority of charter schools do no better or worse than traditional public schools A: On average, nationally, students in 17 percent of charter schools performed significantly better than if they had attended their neighborhood traditional public school. On the flip side, students in 37 percent of charter schools performed significantly worse, and students in the remaining 46 percent of charter schools did not perform significantly better or worse than if they had attended their neighborhood traditional public school. However, research also shows that students in charter high schools score higher on college entrance exams (e.g., the SAT or ACT) and are more likely to graduate high school and attend college than similar students in traditional public schools.
Yet the effectiveness of charter schools varies greatly from state to state. Why charter schools are more effective in some states and not in others is not definitive, but there are a few state policies that appear to impact charter school effectiveness. For one, allowing multiple authorizing agencies has a negative impact on charter school effectiveness. This might mean that some charter schools shop around for authorizers that require the least accountability. The other state policy that impacts charter school effectiveness is whether the state limits the number of charter schools with a cap. Research shows that states with a cap realize significantly lower academic growth for their charter schools than states without a cap. However, there are states with caps whose charter schools are more effective than charter schools in states without caps. So more research needs to be done to determine the full extent state policies have on charter school achievement.
Overall, the majority of charter schools do no better or worse than traditional public schools. To learn more about what research says about charter schools check out the Center’s Charter
In evaluating some of the statistical studies that seek to compare the performance of charter and public schools, recent investigations conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University reveal that students' test scores may prove that public schools are now outperforming charter schools. The Stanford analysts compared reading and math state-based standardized test scores between charter school and public school students in 15 states, as well as scores in the District of Columbia. Experts found that 37 percent of charter schools posted improvements in math scores; however, these improvement rates were significantly below the improvement rates of students in public school classrooms. Furthermore, 46 percent of charter schools experienced math improvements that were "statistically indistinguishable" from the average improvement rates shown by public school students.
Another study reported by the New York Daily News found that public schools and charter schools in New York City showed equally “dismal” performance on state assessments aligned to more rigorous standards. Just 25 percent of charter school students achieved proficiency in English, one percent less than public school students. In math, 35 percent of students at charter schools were proficient, as compared to 30 percent of public school students. These most recent scores represent a continuous five-year drop in math and English scores for all schools in New York City.
Yet, in Chicago, charter schools seem to be finding success where public schools are not. According to a story by the Chicago Tribune, charter school students are showing greater gains in both math and English than their public school counterparts. These gains show even greater significance for low-income and minority students. Over the last five years, charter school students in Chicago performed as well or better than public schools in terms of achievement in math and English.
【 在 wewill2009 (daluobe) 的大作中提到: 】 http://www.data-first.org/questions/how-do-charter-schools-compare-to-regular-public-schools-in-student-performance/ 仅供参考。 How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student performance? Share Print School Organization Jim Hull, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Public Education How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student performance? ...................
【 在 payson (payson) 的大作中提到: 】 depends. AZ的charter school远远好过公立的 不可能吧？那里的charter schools的比例在全美最高：1/4。前两年哈佛教育学院 的人做的一个调查发现： Although it is clear that charter schools are an increasingly important educational option in Arizona, there is conflicting evidence on their effectiveness relative to traditional public schools. Solmon and Goldschmidt (2004) examined student achievement in reading over the three-year period from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, and found that elementary school students attending charter schools began with lower test scores than students in traditional public schools, but showed faster achievement growth. The same study found no effects of charter attendance on achievement growth for middle school students and a modest negative effect for high school students, which the authors speculated could be due to charter high schools being less likely to have an academic orientation. But a recent report from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO 2013) at Stanford University examined data from 2005-06 to 2010-11 and found that charter students performed slightly worse in both reading and math than a matched comparison group of students in traditional public schools 。。。。 The mediocre overall performance of the charter sector in Arizona should notovershadow the impressive work being done in some individual schools. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG14_04_Chingos_West.pdf
【 在 fakestory (fakestory) 的大作中提到: 】 确实有charter school on daily field trip，因为没有教室。哈哈哈 charter school教育并不比public school好。并不是private就是好。 注意，charter schools是公校不是私校
【 在 henshuhen (henshuhen) 的大作中提到: 】 普通的可能是不如 说实话日常生活也用不了多少高深的数学 真到数学系博士生的层次 老中也没有多突出 : US Students Lag Peers in East Asia, Russia in Math, Science : http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-students-lag-peers-east-asia-russia-math-43838538 : public
You do not know public system at all. Now, in many states, property tax is distributed in whole state rather than use in your local school. This means the property tax collected in an expensive and good school district will be used in a poor and bad school district. At least, Texas and California use this way to distribute property tax. The general rule is the better the school district is the less funding it will get.
The good school is good just because parents push kids after school and it has nothing to do with school.
首先，公立教育就是拿纳税人的钱给所有孩子一个受教育的机会（机会平等）。大多数州政府都是按孩子数目摊钱的，因为只有这样才公平。认为穷人不交税，他们的孩子就不值得受教育，或者认为自己交税多，理应拿回更多，或拿回自己的Property Tax来上私校的都是在Deny The Equal Opportunity.
你连这个都不知道，肯定是个翻墙的五毛。
你再看看
房价会不会腰斩啊
里50万房子的学区和郊区50万房子学区的差距？就是郊区 50万房子的学区也有天差地
别的 拿房价高低衡量学区好坏就是无知到极点 影响房价的不光光一个学区的因素
神经病
哪有担心收完学费和政府教育经费跑路的？
我就说最好的公校也不是老黑劳模为主的好charter school的对手。那个好那个坏不是一目了然吗？
charter school交钱你可以不去啊。干嘛不去上公校？还是有各种需求吗。
家长拿着教育券自己可以选择啊
仅供参考。
How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student
performance?
Share
Print
School Organization
Jim Hull, Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Public Education
How do charter schools compare to traditional public schools in student
performance?
Overall, the majority of charter schools do no better or worse than
traditional public schools
A: On average, nationally, students in 17 percent of charter schools
performed significantly better than if they had attended their neighborhood traditional public school.
On the flip side, students in 37 percent of charter schools performed
significantly worse, and students in the remaining 46 percent of charter
schools did not perform significantly better or worse than if they had
attended their neighborhood traditional public school. However, research
also shows that students in charter high schools score higher on college
entrance exams (e.g., the SAT or ACT) and are more likely to graduate high
school and attend college than similar students in traditional public
schools.
Yet the effectiveness of charter schools varies greatly from state to state. Why charter schools are more effective in some states and not in others is not definitive, but there are a few state policies that appear to impact
charter school effectiveness. For one, allowing multiple authorizing
agencies has a negative impact on charter school effectiveness. This might
mean that some charter schools shop around for authorizers that require the least accountability. The other state policy that impacts charter school
effectiveness is whether the state limits the number of charter schools with a cap. Research shows that states with a cap realize significantly lower
academic growth for their charter schools than states without a cap. However, there are states with caps whose charter schools are more effective than
charter schools in states without caps. So more research needs to be done to determine the full extent state policies have on charter school achievement.
Overall, the majority of charter schools do no better or worse than
traditional public schools. To learn more about what research says about
charter schools check out the Center’s Charter
只是说给上公立的阶层多一个类似衡水中学之类的选择
否则跟着一帮混子一起读中学就废掉了
比私立低一档
教育券无非有的地方公立实在太烂了，打架斗殴bully抽大麻
给学生家长一个机会拿着券选其他学校
用这个钱去搞别的学校就是偷钱。
下面的文章就是joke.全部数据如下：
Test Scores: Charter Schools vs. Public Schools
In evaluating some of the statistical studies that seek to compare the
performance of charter and public schools, recent investigations conducted
by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford
University reveal that students' test scores may prove that public schools
are now outperforming charter schools. The Stanford analysts compared
reading and math state-based standardized test scores between charter school and public school students in 15 states, as well as scores in the District of Columbia. Experts found that 37 percent of charter schools posted
improvements in math scores; however, these improvement rates were
significantly below the improvement rates of students in public school
classrooms. Furthermore, 46 percent of charter schools experienced math
improvements that were "statistically indistinguishable" from the average
improvement rates shown by public school students.
Another study reported by the New York Daily News found that public schools and charter schools in New York City showed equally “dismal” performance
on state assessments aligned to more rigorous standards. Just 25 percent of charter school students achieved proficiency in English, one percent less
than public school students. In math, 35 percent of students at charter
schools were proficient, as compared to 30 percent of public school students. These most recent scores represent a continuous five-year drop in math and English scores for all schools in New York City.
Yet, in Chicago, charter schools seem to be finding success where public
schools are not. According to a story by the Chicago Tribune, charter school students are showing greater gains in both math and English than their
public school counterparts. These gains show even greater significance for
low-income and minority students. Over the last five years, charter school
students in Chicago performed as well or better than public schools in terms of achievement in math and English.
事实上，引文说的就是dc的charter school. 37% improved但是不如公校提高的多。当然这个句子本身就很费解。必须看原始数据才知道是怎么cook出来的。
下面纽约和芝加哥的怎么就不引用了？
注意：
These gains show even greater significance for low-income and minority
students
本来人家办charter就是解决老黑劳模孩子还想上学的问题。你们10分学区老黄左唧唧
什么啊。
等着人家高中毕业上大学AA把你们都操翻吧。
以前没有voucher时，穆斯林家长要送小孩上伊斯兰学校只能自己花钱。
等有了voucher就可以拿着纳税人的钱去上，他们每家还都生一大堆，到头来怎么不是
用纳税人的钱资助穆斯林学校？
是joke。
如果说，私立大学好，我们应该把tax dollar用来补贴私立大学而不是公立大学。
这个逻辑是没法让人理解的。
小学生啥都不懂
如果死立学校给他们灌输极端思想仇恨社会等于毁了他们
最好的公立，私立大学我都去过。办事效率差别极大。订试剂，私立overnight 能搞定，公立常常要拖一周。
fakestory这么急，皇帝不急太监急
对于上的起私立的有钱人是好事
对于依赖公立的中产是坏事
因为教育经费被分走了
教育质量自然就下来了
搞不好还得多交税补上经费漏洞
公立学校效率
还有的差 同样蓝带学校 南方州的老师才拿4万5 凭什么兰州老师就该拿8万？你告诉我living cost有差那么多么？一个地税1%不到 一个3-4% 房价可是一样的水平 亚裔比例也相近 这就是美国的公立教育 当然你想要孩子从小学校做作业人手发一个iPad 教室
里清一色苹果机 普及的变性人厕所当然可以选择交那3-4%的地税
个人资产涨到60亿却一分钱的税也不交
等于纽约市的中产替这家伙交了20年的税
楼猪不支持charter school也可以理解，毕竟这是要跟公校分经费的
不明白的是，为什么这么极端，好像增加charter school的结果是天要塌了似的？左臂都喜欢这样耸人听闻吗
赞一个
。。。。。。
纽时是从纽约地税文件里找出那1B抵扣来的
所以不光是联邦税
搞不好大统领连纽约州税NYC市税一块让粉丝们代缴了
至于地产税要看那些大厦是不是挂他名下
大统领吃龙虾的本事不是你这种小喽啰大脑所能容纳的
1. 好学区一般不支持Charter Schools,因为公立学校已经很好了，Welfare孩子很少。2. 中等学区有家长要求Charter，因为他们不愿意自己的孩子被来自Welfare家庭的孩
子带坏。
3. 差学区很多Welfare Families. 家长很多根本不知道怎么教育孩子。在这些地方，
好的政府会推动Charter，这样可以跳过教师工会，加长上课时间，加大Discipline.
加州州长Jerry Brown在Oakland做市长时就是这么干的。结果很多黑人孩子在半军事化的管理下表现优异。纽约的例子不清楚，看起来也是用同样的方法。
在上边三种情况里，差区的Charter School一定要政府监管，因为家长们没这个能力。中等学区的Charter，政府要Regulate招生，不然Charter School会把差生全部淘汰给
公校。
charter school主要是可以用不一样的教学方法，不受州里和学区的大纲限制。很多地方charter schools像国内学校狠抓学习。
1.允许按学区办chart，或把公立转chart
2.教师评分，按分数高低可以解雇。现在教师工会按工作年限解雇新人的确不合理。
3.不允许跨区上chart和公立。想让孩子上好学校家长可以搬家。
4.不允许补贴私校。
现在这新政策纯粹是补贴富人用的，最后经费缺口还得靠中产增税来补足
学中一半家长是医生或者大学教授。学校不管午饭，一周有三天帮助订饭，比公立学校贵一倍。学校不提供校车，家长自己接送。学校搞超前教育，7年级上9年级的课，9年
级结束高中课程，高中全部是荣誉课程和AP课程。学校并且开设几十种课外活动，如果天天上课外活动，每年的花费不会超过1000，但是娃在学校从早上8点待到晚上5点才能回家，然后是平均1-2小时的作业。他们数学平均每周小测验一次，所有功课每次作业
都打分，每年5次考试，每次考试结束举行发奖大会，家长也参加。
学校建立在本州房价最贵的区旁边，导致了贫民区的孩子几乎没有办法来上学。但是小孩子被不停的洗脑，要求学业优秀，要求课外活动优秀。这种学校向全市和邻近地区招生，直接后果是公立学校为了抢生源，开始被逼着大搞gifted program和各种竞赛班，并且也开始跨区招生。
这么搞的结果怎么着，我娃还不肯去读公校了。威胁他最有效的方法就是扬言把他转到公校去。说明charter school的方法完全行得通啊。
需要提高教育质量的是那些差区
你家这个chart school显然没起到这个作用
。。。。。。
你这个有点像纽约市那几所特殊高中
教学质量比私立都好
入学考试全市选拔
收录尖子学生
录取率不超过5%
孩子真要给录取了举家欢庆
然后为了让孩子上学方便想办法到附近租房买房
但是这只能让极少学生得利
现在教育的一大问题是不平衡
好的更好差的更差
新政似乎在加剧这一趋势
是家长破产
由于这个学校全市招生在那里抢生源。我们市的公立学校也开始跨区招生，开始大量的超前班和竞赛班。所以对公立学校的教育应该是有促进作用的。
还有一点您可能误解了，我家孩子不是考进去的，就是报名排队进去的。当然如果成绩跟不上，学校可能会单独谈话，或者劝退，这是我听别人说的。所以客观上，学校也是给了所有的孩子机会，能不能留在那里就看学生自己的表现了.
我家孩子原先读的就是所谓好区10分的蓝带学校。到了这个学校才发现，从学生老师的精神面貌，学习风气和老师的工作态度，还有课外活动的开展情况，charter school和公立学校没法比。
学校里面老师一周里面至少一天7点30分就到校帮学生答疑，如果开课后班，5点才能离开，工作时间有时长达10个小时。我真的不能想像原先那所公立学校有老师会这么做。
政府补贴里来。老师放羊，不准开除学生，一定给毕业文凭。学生屁也学不到。
这样的社区大学美国很多。
变相的“贵族学校”。但这种类似国内的“掐尖”精英教育模式，穷人孩子是不会得益的。
这里讨论的Charter School是面对普通大众的，如果没有政府监管，这些学校在差区就有可能变成以营利为目的的野鸡学校（因为家长们很容易骗），在中等学区就会出现招生中Discrimination against the disadvantaged.
在老师不负责任的教育下越来越差，这是急需解决的问题。现在看不到美国有用大批
charter school替代公校的意思。
如果越来越多的学生烂下去了，几所charter school的学生好起来，有什么用，整个社会充斥了没知识就知道嗑药的傻子，几个charter school出来的精英估计也会马上杆屁。
打个比方，巴西首都圣保罗，满大街的小偷和强盗，走路都不安全，那有几个十分校，你会让的子女去吗？
这样的办学条件能搞到挺高的学术水平，不收学费，并且在很多州比赛都是冠军，对公立学
校是极大的讽刺。
好学区的学生平均经费比烂学区的低。 地税只是学区经费的一部分。 还有联邦和州的教育补助。 地税高的地方没补助，地税少的补助高。
http://www.bestplaces.net/education/city/new_jersey/newark
烂学区:
EDUCATION Newark, New Jersey United States
Expend. per Student $33,467 $12,383
Educ. Expend. per Student $25,233 $10,574
http://www.bestplaces.net/education/city/new_jersey/summit
好学区:
EDUCATION Summit, New Jersey United States
Expend. per Student $16,960 $12,383
Educ. Expend. per Student $15,807 $10,574
这不是个别例子。 你自己查查你周围的好、坏学区的人均学区经费。
今天遇到一个护士，要给病人打四毫升溶液。但是这个溶液保险不包，只能选用另一个三倍浓度的溶液。换算后应该是一点三毫升，一点也不高深。这货拿笔画画半天，说是三点二，然后自信满满就准备上药了，老子赶紧一把把丫拉住...这他妈的就是美国公
立学校教出来的硕士
你们这帮左逼迟早会死在自己供出来的这帮废物手上
，人很容易骗？
这他妈就是政府想垄断教育
去尼玛的
凭什么税钱就必须给公立学校那帮子教师工会的烂人花？教出一帮白痴学生？
就是应该增加家长的选择
引入市场竞争才对
支持trump 支持新教育部长
好学校国家为啥不能补贴？
因为公立大学是亲生的？再烂也要补贴？
你以为是在中国吗？
你们这帮左逼不去谴责税法的制定者
反而在这里谴责税法的执行者
要是税法本身就让人有各种合法手段避税
正常人谁会不用？
巴菲特用了
盖茨用了
克林顿用了
怎么没见你们放一个屁？
最后培养的也就是底层打工的
这不是很正常
毕竟大部分人都是这样的
投资亏损抵税难道不是合情合理吗？敢情美帝也是挣钱的时候收税，亏钱的时候也收税？和我党一样？
你炒股今天挣了10k交了税，明天亏了10k，一分钱不退你税，尼玛你一分钱没挣到还交了那么多税，你试试看？
distributed in whole state rather than use in your local school. This means the property tax collected in an expensive and good school district will be used in a poor and bad school district. At least, Texas and California use
this way to distribute property tax. The general rule is the better the
school district is the less funding it will get.
The good school is good just because parents push kids after school and it
has nothing to do with school.
charter 如果肯管到5-6点，还逼着大家做作业，不是更帮助那些因为种种原因不能重
视教育家庭的小孩子吗？
Discipline的方法在低收入区非常有效。Charter School如果能做到这点，当然应该推广。事实上，Obama和加州州长Jerry Brown都很支持这样的Charter.
但这里政府必须监管以防Charter School只是从State骗Funding而不提高教学质量。现在很多民营大学就有这个问题，让学生拿贷款交学费而没学什么东西，毕业后找不到工作还背了一屁股债。大学倒是很赚一笔。
人不得不妥协。否则就被淘汰。这就叫自由主义，独立精神，这就是自强不息的美国精神。美国历史上被淘汰掉的弱势群体多了去了，否则美国也不可能这么强大。
动不动就代表别人的，是对别人的不尊重。美国现在的衰落，就是一帮liberals动不动就搞大政府照顾弱势群体，把弱势群体往寄生虫的方向去培养。
大家有相对公平的机会就可以了，剩下的，事在人为，自己去奋斗。这就是美国梦。所谓的弱势群体，越扶越没骨头，没自尊，越需要扶，还越来越多。机会公平，过程公平，才是真正公平。强调结果公平，就是惩罚勤奋和努力。
请多读书，自由，平等，博爱 是西方文明的基石，未曾听说美国精神就是“弱肉强食
”.
现在民主党作为一个整体（不提个别成员），都是反对Charter School的。原因就是代表教师工会的利益贝。
现在这个情况，好的教师想多干都不行，教师工会不让。所以引进没有工会的Charter School决定是利大于弊。
School。目的就是为了制衡教师工会。不管什么样的Ideology,孩子的教育不能荒废。
狼和羊是平等的，人和羊不是。豢养就是最大的不平等，否认对方人格和能力，抹杀对方的努力。
这就是liberals的问题：不尊重弱者，靠牺牲中产阶级的利益去施舍那些四肢健全游手好闲的所谓弱势群体，满足自己的道德优越感。
一个没有失败者的教育系统，是培养不出来优秀人才的。对弱势群体，应该扶持，不能豢养。
首先，公立教育就是拿纳税人的钱给所有孩子一个受教育的机会（机会平等）。大多数州政府都是按孩子数目摊钱的，因为只有这样才公平。认为穷人不交税，他们的孩子就不值得受教育，或者认为自己交税多，理应拿回更多，或拿回自己的Property Tax来上私校的都是在Deny The Equal Opportunity.
其次，引入什么样的竞争/监督机制来达到最佳的教育效果是政府和公民都应该考虑的
，因为钱是大家的。如果在差区引入没有监管的营利Charter School能大幅提高那里的教育水平，相信没人会反对。但事实并不是这样。这跟不尊重弱者毫无关系。
应该反对一切拿纳税人的钱做“慈善”并买选票的行为，南美国家就是这样败掉的。但公立教育，公共交通，公立医疗，警察/救火队，养老金这些都是Public Goods，都是
在增进平等。