Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 88
Thanks Tree27Thanks

Thread: Broad support for charter schools

  1. #41
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14,009
    Thanks
    12637

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Actually, I really doubt this. There have been a number of attempts at for-profit schools over several decades--I even invested in one attempt back in the 1980s. There's no business plan that works, given public funding of schools. The previous idea was to save on costs, but it turns out there's no way to do enough cost savings to turn a profit on the same revenue that public schools get. Hire fewer janitors? Pay teachers less? Turn down the thermostat even further? None of these things work without providing inferior educational outcomes.
    Why doubt it, charter schools are profitable and certainly privately owned prisons are making good money and they would face more problems that cost money than schools would..and yet they are doing great.

    The educational outcomes will suffer, but why should they care about that when they are after profit..and the idea that not only can you profit, you can advertise and do your branding campaigns WHILE making your profits. BONANZA!

    Influence of food companies' brand mascots and entertainment companies' cartoon media characters on children's diet and health: a systematic review and research needs

    The use of brand mascots and licensed characters is policy relevant for many reasons. First, companies and marketers use them to build an emotional relationship with children and cultivate brand loyalty for products that persists into adulthood (41–44)


    Whats very important is that they have learned that the younger you can get a person and market your brand, the more it will persist and work all throughout their lives. Allowing schools to be owned or partner with schools is to give them unfettered access to young children who have no defense against this. Kids are already quite saturated, and companies dont spend that money on something that doesnt have significant impact..it works. Why should we allow them to do this?

  2. #42
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    22,992
    Thanks
    11942

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrary View Post
    So its ok to allow corps to BRAND to kids?

    I blame us for allowing corps to MARKET to children, to do their branding with children as their target audience.
    If you don't want to feed bad food to your kids, then don't feed it to them. Direct their attention to something healthier. Parents manage kids...not corporations.

  3. #43
    Moderator HCProf's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    22,992
    Thanks
    11942

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I would oppose your statement "These kids did not exist when we were growing up." Special needs kids have always existed. But we did different things with them. Locked them in the basement. Sent them to "homes" where they were mistreated until they died. Sent to "special schools" where people didn't have to deal with them and so years later they can imagine such children didn't exist.

    I agree that we've seen a coarsening of the culture, and the behavior you cite is partly a problem with parenting, but even THAT is a matter of changing cultural norms. It's also a class issue--I suspect you're objecting to the children of people whose place in society gives them no reason to instill respect for authority or a filter on language. I doubt you hear the children of doctors, lawyers, or engineers telling you to go fuck yourself.
    These schools are not only for the disadvantaged...there are many middle class and wealthier kids in those schools too. Wealthier kids can be pretty obnoxious as well..we had a student in our Voctech program that was a "fuck you girl" and her case worker met with the teachers on how to manage her in class. She lasted two grade periods and was tossed back to her home school and eventually ended up in a charter school. Her family was not poor. Disadvantaged parents are able to teach respect....we can't lump them all together based on socioeconomic class.

  4. #44
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14,009
    Thanks
    12637

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by HCProf View Post
    If you don't want to feed bad food to your kids, then don't feed it to them. Direct their attention to something healthier. Parents manage kids...not corporations.
    Thats not correct, parents are not the only influence in a childs life.

    Are you telling me you think its ok to allow corps into the school to brand market to children?

  5. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,573
    Thanks
    37131

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrary View Post
    Why doubt it, charter schools are profitable
    Are they? Please what is a private, for profit company running one? Do you have a name?
    and certainly privately owned prisons are making good money and they would face more problems that cost money than schools would..and yet they are doing great.
    Schools aren't prisons.

    The educational outcomes will suffer, but why should they care about that when they are after profit..and the idea that not only can you profit, you can advertise and do your branding campaigns WHILE making your profits. BONANZA!
    They have to care because all American school children are tested and the test scores are used to compare school to school.
    Influence of food companies' brand mascots and entertainment companies' cartoon media characters on children's diet and health: a systematic review and research needs

    The use of brand mascots and licensed characters is policy relevant for many reasons. First, companies and marketers use them to build an emotional relationship with children and cultivate brand loyalty for products that persists into adulthood (4144)
    Not sure this is related to what I'm talking about. There are much cheaper and easier ways to advertise to school children than running a school. Do you have any evidence that a fast food retailer wants to run schools?


    Whats very important is that they have learned that the younger you can get a person and market your brand, the more it will persist and work all throughout their lives. Allowing schools to be owned or partner with schools is to give them unfettered access to young children who have no defense against this. Kids are already quite saturated, and companies dont spend that money on something that doesnt have significant impact..it works. Why should we allow them to do this?
    I have no qualms with your argument here. It's been part of the discourse since "Channel One" started offering schools free "news-for-kids" programming along with advertising.

  6. #46
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    39,023
    Thanks
    37259

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I have no qualms with your argument here. It's been part of the discourse since "Channel One" started offering schools free "news-for-kids" programming along with advertising.

    Yep. That was a genuine problem, and it coincided with companies gaining control of vending machines in schools to offer only corporate product to the school kids.

  7. #47
    Veteran Member Kontrary's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    14,009
    Thanks
    12637

    From
    Sweden
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Are they? Please what is a private, for profit company running one? Do you have a name? Schools aren't prisons.
    Charter schools now big business nationwide | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    The number of education management organizations has exploded on the national scene -- for-profit groups growing from five in 1995-96 to 99 in 2010-11 and nonprofit organizations growing from 48 in 1998 to 197 in 2010-11 -- according to the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.

    That report showed that 35 percent of all public charter schools in the nation were operated by education management organizations -- both for-profit and nonprofit -- enrolling 42 percent of the nation's charter school students.

    "Within a couple of years, we're going to see the EMO sector account for more than half of the nation's public charter school students," said Mr. Miron, one of the authors of the policy center's report.


    Basically, most of them are now being absorbed (and even most employees can be "subcontracted" via this education management organizations...their fees are rather high AND we dont have much accountability and there are barriers as they are not "public organizations" and they get to protect lots of that info under the idea of their "business propietary information".

    Schools arent prisons but they would face the same problem being profitable if privately owned right? Yet they squeeze out plenty of profit, just like privatizing education will. Why do you think there would be profit in the prison system yet not in education?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    They have to care because all American school children are tested and the test scores are used to compare school to school.
    Not sure this is related to what I'm talking about. There are much cheaper and easier ways to advertise to school children than running a school. Do you have any evidence that a fast food retailer wants to run schools?
    They dont have to care, besides cherry picking and pretending that they simply need more money, you can design your tests, report what you like and not really care much about actual outcomes.

    Its not JUST advertising to kids, its branding AND its profits in running the schools, becoming the food supplier, the text book supplier and gearing all towards your own profits...its a wetdream for any corporation to be able to have kids from this age and be the one who brands them and shapes them...all for corp profit and power, why WOULDNT they want to do that?

    Why arent we introducing regulations to disallow such ownership AND why arent we stopping them from partnering with schools to have fund raising events and allowing them access to do brand marketing to children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I have no qualms with your argument here. It's been part of the discourse since "Channel One" started offering schools free "news-for-kids" programming along with advertising.
    By allowing corps like Macdonalds to partner with schools to do any sort of "event" shows their interest in this AND the fact that we allow it shows we are going to continue down this road if we dont wake up a bit more NOW and stop selling all public services to "for profit" corps....

  8. #48
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,573
    Thanks
    37131

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Kontrary View Post
    Charter schools now big business nationwide | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    The number of education management organizations has exploded on the national scene -- for-profit groups growing from five in 1995-96 to 99 in 2010-11 and nonprofit organizations growing from 48 in 1998 to 197 in 2010-11 -- according to the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.

    That report showed that 35 percent of all public charter schools in the nation were operated by education management organizations -- both for-profit and nonprofit -- enrolling 42 percent of the nation's charter school students.
    It would be nice to have my question answered. All this says is that some fraction of some fraction of charter schools are run by some sort of for-profit company. I'm trying to figure out how they make money. I can't do that without a name.

    "Within a couple of years, we're going to see the EMO sector account for more than half of the nation's public charter school students," said Mr. Miron, one of the authors of the policy center's report.


    Basically, most of them are now being absorbed (and even most employees can be "subcontracted" via this education management organizations...their fees are rather high AND we dont have much accountability and there are barriers as they are not "public organizations" and they get to protect lots of that info under the idea of their "business propietary information".

    Schools arent prisons but they would face the same problem being profitable if privately owned right? Yet they squeeze out plenty of profit, just like privatizing education will. Why do you think there would be profit in the prison system yet not in education?
    Schools aren't prisons and the distinction is important because prisons don't mostly have to compete over the treatment of prisoners. Schools DO have to compete over the performance of the children they educate. I'm trying to figure out how a private company gets as good or better results than a public school on the same money. You can help me do that or you can just rant.




    They dont have to care, besides cherry picking and pretending that they simply need more money, you can design your tests, report what you like and not really care much about actual outcomes.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. You think charter schools can go to the communities they serve and say "we need more money?" That would indicate that they aren't doing a good job.

    Its not JUST advertising to kids, its branding AND its profits in running the schools, becoming the food supplier, the text book supplier and gearing all towards your own profits...its a wetdream for any corporation to be able to have kids from this age and be the one who brands them and shapes them...all for corp profit and power, why WOULDNT they want to do that?
    Check your claims against reality. Do these management companies create their own textbooks? That market is already sewn up by another set of scam artists. There's not a lot of money to be made on school lunches, since that's a federal program aimed at lowering costs for students. McDonalds or whomever can make more money just getting an outlet into the lunchroom of a public school--something they do already in some upscale communities. They don' have to take on the responsibility for running the school.

    Why arent we introducing regulations to disallow such ownership AND why arent we stopping them from partnering with schools to have fund raising events and allowing them access to do brand marketing to children.
    I suspect because it's a problem that takes care of itself. Schooling isn't that profitable unless you're charging students directly. Government schools are all about CONTROLLING payments to schools, and that's antithetical to a private business model unless the private entity can do a better job of controlling costs--which has proven elusive.


    By allowing corps like Macdonalds to partner with schools to do any sort of "event" shows their interest in this AND the fact that we allow it shows we are going to continue down this road if we dont wake up a bit more NOW and stop selling all public services to "for profit" corps....
    I agree with you in your opposition to letting McDonalds partner with schools. I don't by your slippery slope argument, however. There really is a devil in there, but it's already in via the textbook publishers who already exist and who (claim at least to) pour tons of money into research and development of better materials. A fast food company is ill-equipped to compete in a market so different from the rest of what they do, especially when that market is already heavily controlled by an oligopoly of companies, primarily Pearson.

  9. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,573
    Thanks
    37131

    From
    in my head
    @Kontrary, take a look at this: For-profit charter schools are failing and fading. Here?s why.
    Edison Schools—once the biggest name in the for-profit charter industry—partnered with 130 schools (some noncharter) in the early 2000s and fully managed 80. It now manages only five. In 2000, Advantage Schools, another for-profit chain, enrolled more than 10,000 children across the country. Today it enrolls zero. New Orleans hired several for-profit companies to manage some new charter schools after Hurricane Katrina. But by 2013 all of them had disappeared, their schools taken over by nonprofit operators. In recent years, lawmakers in Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee have all taken steps to curb the growth of for-profit charters or ban them outright.

    “You can’t make a profit and get good results.”

    Nationally, in 2007 for-profit management companies ran almost half of charter schools that are part of chains or larger networks of schools. By 2010, the most recent year the figures were compiled, the number had dropped to 37 percent, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Gary Miron, a professor of educational leadership at Western Michigan University, says for-profit brick-and-mortar charter schools are by no means gone yet—and their online counterparts, which run degree-awarding charter schools on the Web, in particular, continue to flourish. But large for-profit operators with aspirations of operating scores of brick-and-mortar charter schools nationally have become something of an anomaly.
    Making a profit while providing public school students with decent education turns out to be quite difficult. Most efforts in that area have failed or are failing. It would be monumentally stupid for a successful company in another business area to suddenly decide to jump into running schools. Many others have failed. It's simply not a workable business model.

  10. #50
    Proud deplorable Bigot Outdraw Poker Champion, Colinks :Swap Champion
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14,266
    Thanks
    3092

    From
    MI
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I could never find it but it's worth repeating.
    I taught in inner-city Brooklyn and the school was failing badly. The chancellor did an experiment and he let Divide. Our three-story building into three separate mini. schools. The kids applied to the school they wanted. One had a business theme to it, one was called the Academy, and ours was the school for social action called EnRich. So now instead of 900 kids in one school we had 300 in each school...and the best part was we had about 20 kids in a class. We knew every single kid and it was like the best private school. What I found the most fun was when we looked at the kids who were applying one teacher might say "he's a Terror" and inevitably one would say, .oh, I love that kid" custodians had to kick the teachers out becuase we stayed so late. The kids soared academically..... We still had one principal for the whole building. It was a huge success what do you think happened? They stopped funding the program
    Thanks for repeating it for me. And this was either a high or middle school? Or was it k-12? And did the teachers teach in all the different 'schools' or did you have enough qualified to staff all the different schools?

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Equity For Colorado's Charter Schools
    By BigLeRoy in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 8th April 2016, 07:01 AM
  2. 57 Charter Schools
    By MaryAnne in forum Education
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 12th February 2016, 04:27 AM
  3. The verdict on charter schools?
    By bajisima in forum Education
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11th July 2015, 08:04 AM
  4. Boston's charter schools outpace their peers
    By bajisima in forum Education
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 8th April 2015, 05:37 AM
  5. Scores lower in charter schools
    By Mrs Behavin in forum Education
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24th August 2006, 06:12 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed