As a teacher I want to work in an effective school where children learn. I dare say the ability for children to learn is the most important determinant of job satisfaction, more important than salary and benefits, and more important than union membership, (though these are required elements for survival in today’s bitter political scenario regarding education, especially so in Philadelphia).
An important skill I am developing is to read between the lines when digesting the outcomes of research articles. The two quotes below are from a recent article regarding Chicago Charter Schools.
1. ”It finds that attending a charter high school in that city boosts a student’s chance of graduating from high school by 7 percentage points and increases the likelihood that a student will enroll in college by 11 percentage points.”
2.“But it also finds that students in Chicago’s charter schools don’t appear to make any greater learning gains than their peers in regular elementary and middle schools.”
So what gives? Charter Schools are not producing better learning outcomes for students, but perhaps, by manufacturing data such as higher graduation rates and college attendance they are winning the PR wars, which will shape the future of education.
Clearly, equal learning outcomes should produce equal High School graduation rates and similar college attendance rates. Are Charter Schools based on educational outcomes and isolated financial debacles joining Edison Schools as the new Enron of education?
