12th in a series.
Re: “No Amount of Shrubbery Clouds Mielke’s Feelings”
As a teacher in public schools for almost four decades, David Mielke passionately believes public schools are superior to charter schools.
In the classroom, and no doubt in the work environment, too.
As president of the Teachers Union, a believer in organized labor, it rankles him that charter schools frequently employ non-union teachers.
After culling a recent comparative study at Stanford, Mr. Mielke said that 46 percent of the charters and public schools were found to be “about the same. That means that for almost 50 percent, there is no difference.
“Seventeen percent of charters were doing better by their measures..
“Thirty-seven percent of charters were doing worse.”
Mr. Mielke could be pardoned for the lilt in his tone as he said that.
“The biggest factor for student achievement,” he said, “is socio-economic status.
“If I have a charter school in West L.A., Beverly Hills or a nice part of the Valley, those kids are going to do well.
“If I have a charter school in the inner city where there is poverty, those kids aren’t going to do so well.
“Every year when the standardized tests are published in the Los Angeles Times, you can almost guarantee that Beverly Hills and Manhattan Beach are going to score higher than Culver City,” Mr. Mielke said.
“Culver City will score higher than Inglewood, and Inglewood will score higher than Compton.”
(To be continued)
One Comment on ““Who Is Better – Charters or Public Schools?””
Whose socio-economic status is Mr Mielke talking about–the students’ or the teachers’? Obviously, teacher unions are most concerned with and have a direct say in their union members’ compensation and working conditions; but they can do very little to alleviate the living conditions of the school district’s students.
If, as Mr Mielke says that the socio-economic status is the biggest factor in student achievement, then does it really matter–beyond being competitive–what districts pay their teachers?