Neoliberalism2024 t1_j9hv7d7 wrote
If you had decent public schools, this wouldn’t be necessary.
People will criticize charter schools because they kick out misbehaving students.
But why is this a bad thing: upper middle class people do the same thing to get away from misbehaving students - by moving to rich suburbs. No one really is mad about that. And in fact most of the anti-charter school liberals in this sub-Reddit will do exactly that when they have kids, instead of putting them in a local nyc school.
Poor people can’t move to WestChester very easily, so giving them a chance by going to a charter school doesn’t feel very wrong. Just because you’re poor, doesn’t mean your son or daughter needs to be surrounded by disrupting and violent student. They have a right to learn too. Charter schools provide this access.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9ibssn wrote
> Just because you’re poor, doesn’t mean your son or daughter needs to be surrounded by disrupting and violent student. They have a right to learn too.
Progressive people have a tendency to view shitty people like criminals and violent students as victims (of police, bad teachers, society, etc) instead of perpetrators and react by failing to protect innocent people from them.
They believe that keeping these bad people in an otherwise good population will magically reform them and fix their deep lack of discipline, responsibility, empathy, etc. It's magical thinking, and it doesn't work. Antisocial students need to be removed to intensive programs that actually address their major behavioral problems.
misterferguson t1_j9k6lbm wrote
>shitty people like criminals and violent students as victims (of police, bad teachers, society, etc) instead of perpetrators and react by failing to protect innocent people from them.
Further to this, they fail to account for the fact that most people who grow up in those same communities with those same headwinds don't become criminals. I.e. the notion that criminality is predetermined given one's circumstances is clearly proven false by those who suffer the same BS and rise above it.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kuipo wrote
[citation needed]
Please show us the proportions of kids who thrive in that environment and those who fall into the cycle.
This smacks of “I have a friend who grew up in the hood and he’s alright. Why can’t the rest of them be like that?”
Awkward-Painter-2024 t1_j9jbcgs wrote
It's not magical thinking. It's about access. We don't know why all those kids act up. We try to give children a chance. Is it easy, no. Does it seem pointless, yes, sure. But it's not. You can't separate every "trouble-maker" child and put them in prison. These are kids. We need to address social conditions somehow. Private charter schools only move money out of education and into the hands of corporations, CEOs, etc.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9jqtmb wrote
> We don't know why all those kids act up.
Yes we do. They have terrible lives at home, often with parents that don't love them, neglect them, and even abuse them. They aren't disciplined and don't receive healthy boundaries. That describes the vast majority of cases.
> You can't separate every "trouble-maker" child
Yes, you can, and it saves the education of all the remaining children.
> ...and put them in prison. These are kids. We need to address social conditions somehow
You don't put them in prison, but you don't leave them in an environment free to ruin everyone else's life (which is how important education is). Put them in specialized schools that can address the massive behavioral problems that they have. Remove them from abusive households. They absolutely deserve help and a future; leaving them in a normal school population and pretending that will solve their problems does nothing. You might as well send them to jail yourself. Magical thinking.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kuzoz wrote
> Yes we do. They have terrible lives at home, often with parents that don't love them, neglect them, and even abuse them
And diverting money away from the public school system is going to help them… how?
> Yes, you can, and it saves the education of all the remaining children.
And you call progressives out of touch with reality. Lmao
> You don't put them in prison, but you don't leave them in an environment free to ruin everyone else's life (which is how important education is).
1.) literally nobody is advocating for that.
2.) that’s what extra investment in school systems will help with, though. It allows schools to fund extracurricular activities and clubs, provide after school care, give kids tutoring programs to help them along.
Christ, how are you people this shortsighted?
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9l5urq wrote
> And diverting money away from the public school system is going to help them… how?
I support charter schools only to the extent that they allow parents to pressure and force public education officials to acknowledge this problem and actually address it by removing violent and disruptive students from the population of students that are already motivated to learn. Public schools should be well-funded, and in New York they are. They have the highest funding in the nation per-pupil.
> And you call progressives out of touch with reality. Lmao
Yes, you are considerably out of touch with reality on nearly every topic you give your opinion for in this sub.
> 1.) literally nobody is advocating for that.
Yes, they are.
> 2.) that’s what extra investment in school systems will help with, though. It allows schools to fund extracurricular activities and clubs, provide after school care, give kids tutoring programs to help them along.
Throwing money at kids disruptive, antisocial, or violent kids in the middle of the general population of students doesn't magically fix behavioral problems. They need much more direct interventions with much smaller class sizes and, likely, remedial instruction. Fixing those behavioral problems takes time and cannot be done in a normal classroom without being massively disruptive.
Good luck with your hand-wavy ideas.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9laa2n wrote
> I support charter schools only to the extent that they allow parents to pressure and force public education officials to acknowledge this problem and actually address it by removing violent and disruptive students from the population of students that are already motivated to learn.
But if they charters don’t take them, where are they going to go? Federal law requires minors to go to school.
This seems like a problem that would fix itself if we, y’know, invested in public schools.
> Yes, you are considerably out of touch with reality on nearly every topic you give your opinion for in this sub.
Lmao nice ad hominem. Really shows you people are scraping the bottom of the barrel argumentatively.
> Yes, they are
[citation needed]
> Throwing money at kids disruptive, antisocial, or violent kids in the middle of the general population of students doesn't magically fix behavioral problems. They need much more direct interventions with much smaller class sizes and, likely, remedial instruction. Fixing those behavioral problems takes time and cannot be done in a normal classroom without being massively disruptive.
Did you.. not read what I put down? I literally said we could do that in the public school system. You might wanna get your eyes checked, buddy.
> Good luck with your hand-wavy ideas.
You literally suggested the same thing, so speak for yourself, Mr accidental progressive policy.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9loah7 wrote
>Did you.. not read what I put down? I literally said we could do that in the public school system. You might wanna get your eyes checked, buddy.
No, you said we could throw a lot of funding at public schools without giving any further details and don't seem to support removing disruptive students from regular classes on the theory that the money will just *waves hands* solve things.
You've also made claims elsewhere that per-pupil spending in NYC is expected to be high because... the city is big. You don't seem to understand that spending efficiency isn't supposed to plummet as you scale the system up. I question if you have basic economic literacy.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9m96nk wrote
> No, you said we could throw a lot of funding at public schools without giving any further details
I literally gave further details right after that. So you really are that blind.
> You've also made claims elsewhere that per-pupil spending in NYC is expected to be high because... the city is big. You don't seem to understand that spending efficiency isn't supposed to plummet as you scale the system up.
That’s exactly how it happens, though, especially in a student body as big as it is.
KaiDaiz t1_j9mddz3 wrote
> That’s exactly how it happens, though, especially in a student body as big as it is.
Nope. Look at the other large school systems in USA. LA also a HCOL area has 2/3 # of students we have but their school budget is 1/2 ours. If all things being equal and accounting for size, you expect LA school budget be 2/3 of our budget but it isn't. In fact its cheaper. Chicago 1/3 our student # but 1/4 of our school budget.
That's raw numbers. If we look at % of the education line item cost in their budgets, our 40% figures exceeds them if we really want to extrapolate for size.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9mdoa0 wrote
Except yup. Both of those cities have a massive amount of suburban sprawl, so the situations aren’t comparable.
EzNotReal t1_j9nhued wrote
You accused him of having no argument for using an ad-hominem… when he used the exact same ad hominem you did in your previous comment? And then littering the rest of your comment with even more ad hominems? How are you a real person?
IsayNigel t1_j9lpnc0 wrote
Wait, if you’ve already acknowledged that the problem is these kids’ home lives, then how does diverting funds away from public schools put pressure on the parents. This doesn’t even make sense based on your own internal logic.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9oo45r wrote
The problem is both their home lives and mixing them with the general population of students. Diverting funds from public schools that refuse to remove violent or anti-social students to intensive programs that can correct their behavior puts pressure on them to do just that. You address a bad home situation by giving them a safe space during the day at a specialized school that can focus on behavioral problems, and in extreme cases, by removing them from abusive or neglectful homes.
Let me know if you need additional explanation. I advocated for this combination elsewhere in this thread multiple times already. It's not really that confusing. It's pretty simple.
IsayNigel t1_j9ptgb8 wrote
What do you mean “general population” of kids? These are the general population of kids, do you think there’s something defective about them?
Where are you putting these schools? How are you staffing them? Who’s paying for that? How are you training these people?
YouandWhoseArmy t1_j9jlcsc wrote
Schools are not the best route to address social conditions.
IsayNigel t1_j9lpqn1 wrote
So then why take funds away from public schools to divert to charters?
YouandWhoseArmy t1_j9m6u81 wrote
My impression is that public schools have their hands tied with bad kids for whatever reason.
Charters get rid of them. Rightly so.
As far as I can tell they’re the same shit otherwise and charters are making public schools worse and worse. Self fulfilling prophecy.
supermechace t1_ja43rc9 wrote
Not OP but I think charter schools in NYC are a makeshift bandaid and political bandaid to address the inability to meet the needs and wants by parents of schools due to bureaucracy, infighting withing government, competing politics and educational goals, and power of teacher unions. Basically similar to outsourcing govt services to outside companies (which has advantages of not being tied up in bureaucracy and plausible deniability if contractor messes up) but in this case the government maintains control of a competing service(public school vs outsourced charter school). The existence of charter schools is due to government and political dysfunction (which seems to be worsening in NYC) so unless those disappear charter schools aren't likely either. Also keep in mind there's a lot of tax payer money out there so everyone wants it to be used the way they want it to be used.
KaiDaiz t1_j9lrk4w wrote
charters are public schools as well. they both share the same pool of students and funds. if regular public school student enrollment numbers are decreasing while demand for charter are increasing and its enrollment # increasing...only makes sense to give them more of the public school money. fact is, public school are hemorrhaging students due to continued failed policies which creates the need for charters
IsayNigel t1_j9lw22d wrote
They are not public schools in even remotely the same way real public schools are. You actually show up in these threads a lot which makes it seem like you have an agenda to be sure.
KaiDaiz t1_j9lwm4u wrote
They are even by NYS definitions and they definitely share from same pool of resources. no one disputes that. I'm a product of nyc public school all my life and here schooling folks like you how far the system has fallen which led to rise of charters
IsayNigel t1_j9lyqjq wrote
I know, you go through this song and dance every time. No they aren’t. And I literally could not care less, that doesn’t make you an expert on educational policy. Millions of kids go through the DOE every year.
KaiDaiz t1_j9m1bk9 wrote
I suggest you look at the facts. Start with definition of charter school. They public. Start at looking where their funding comes from. Same pool as traditional public. Look at enrollment numbers over past decade. Which is increasing and which ain't. Even Asians are noticing charters and flocking to them over screened schools due to NYC DOE fuckery
Now go into my history. I have always advocate for reform for public schools to return to its once glory. As of right now, NYC DOE on its continued warpath to ruin the entire system and more and more students will flock to charter at this rate. This not my prediction, just look at the enrollment data and public polling regarding charters.
In addition, I am a volunteer tutor. I tutored plenty of kids over the years and def noticed the quality of students education, their abilities dropping and what counts as passing ever lowered.
Even right now, you and others can't seem to understand what the NYC DOE is doing to public schools is creating the need and increased demands for charters. Its basically writing ads for them
IsayNigel t1_j9n5clg wrote
Really, if they’re so public, why don’t they follow the same rules as DOE schools?
ctindel t1_j9m3wf9 wrote
> I have always advocate for reform for public schools to return to its once glory.
What were the glory days of NYC public schools and what about them was glorious?
KaiDaiz t1_j9m4gea wrote
When we actually taught students, had standards and tracked as many promising students as possible of all background. The passing grade for math regents these days is < 1/3 questions correct. What kind of fuked up math is that.
ctindel t1_j9m518e wrote
I thought they had to get a 65 out of 100?
KaiDaiz t1_j9m5uoh wrote
65 doesn't mean 65% of questions correct or raw scores
How bad the problem is now
Heres the 2015 grading chart and each yr the raw score been getting lower to get passing grade
https://www.nysedregents.org/algebraone/615/algone62015-cc.pdf
ctindel t1_j9mapy8 wrote
Oh yeah I remember reading this when it was posted. Haha thanks for the sad reminder of the current state of NY education. I don’t know that there was ever really a golden era of NYC schools where they were generally as good (and producing as good results) as the suburbs though.
People in my parents and grandparents generation just dropped out a lot more instead.
IsayNigel t1_j9lytee wrote
What does “folks like me” even mean?
akmalhot t1_j9jdjya wrote
So all of the other kids should suffer?
againblahisnothere t1_j9jwolg wrote
Actually we do know. They come from homes where a parent will abuse (physical and verbal) and neglect them. This has a direct impact on brain development and the ability to self regulate. When you hit a two year old, you’re putting them in stress mode. Not healthy for a developing brain. This isn’t rocket science. It’s really not their fault but at the same time it’s not fair for them to be disrupting other peoples education. In reality those parents need to be educated and those patterns of abuse need to be broken but saying you’re a shit parent has a condescending tone- not sure what program would address this.
sad_pizza t1_j9k45qh wrote
Schools aren't equipped to handle every "trouble-maker." Schools are meant to educate our children, not to fix every deficiency they have because they aren't getting what they need from their parents or elsewhere. If your goal is to get schools to be that for children, you are setting yourself up for failure. We have a problem with our society (e.g., poverty and the culture that poverty creates) and it is bleeding into our schools. A school-based solution, absent of anything to treat the root problems, will be superficial and ineffective.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9ki7ol wrote
It's not always poverty. Not everyone values the same things.
[deleted] t1_j9mv1zn wrote
[deleted]
Koboldsftw t1_j9jexia wrote
Najee just think the poor kid who should be allowed to have a chance is just as likely the perpetrator as the victim
[deleted] t1_j9jpxaw wrote
[deleted]
mikevago t1_j9jxtls wrote
> They believe that keeping these bad people in an otherwise good population will magically reform them
People believe this because it very often works and its pretty well documented. You have this reductive view that there are "good people" and "bad people" and those are somehow immutable. This isn't a video game where your job is to punish the bad guys. So much misbehavior in high-poverty schools is the result of poverty, and so much of the rest is atmosphere. If everyone in your school grew up in generational poverty and sees nothing but the behaviors that that engenders, you're going to act the way everyone around you acts. If everyone in your school grew up middle class, with middle class behaviors, you're going to act differently. Are kids in that situation going to immediately become perfect, 100% of the time? Of coures not. But on the whole it's absolutely beneficial.
You just have to have faith in people and a genuine desire to help, not your sneering dismissiveness of people who grew up in poverty as inherently "shitty people".
yasth t1_j9i9jjs wrote
I think a lot of the complaint about kicking out kids is that it tends to inflate the scores (by a lot). Kicking out every kid who misses more than 10% of the school year will by itself make you a decent school given an average start. So you can claim a lot of success that is mostly just exclusion of negative outcomes. Reasonable people can disagree on where that line is.
Notably too this is not how suburbs work. In that case the parents are choosing the flock, but the suburban district can’t remove kids easily. A lot of the benefit is just the kids are anything but average (i.e. very well resourced overwhelmingly not single headed and with high parental involvement) to start with. It still isn’t reflective of the quality of schools but the actor is the parents not the school.
That said there is some difference in charter kids vs public school kids/parents happening as well. It is complex though. A very good local public school diminishes charter school results because the parents aren’t incentivized to flee.
This stuff seems simple but really isn’t and at the high end is probably not actually even that important as the parents will do what it takes regardless.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kgmad wrote
Parental involvement is a requirement for charter schools, but not regular public schools. Why is this?
ctindel t1_j9m3hbs wrote
Because even kids with shitty parents have a right to education.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9mgyhb wrote
So kids with shitty parents in regular public schools, and kids with involved parents in charter schools..interesting.
RainbowCrown71 t1_j9lyzoc wrote
This. My sister was bullied endlessly in middle school by these ghetto girls who taunted her for “trying to be White” (for the sin of reading books and being curious). Her grades were terrible and she would cry every day on the car ride home. School officials did nothing because the girls were Black and they were worried about being seen as racist.
We moved her to a more suburban district and now she’s thriving. There’s still trashy kids, but she’s in AP classes and has friends and doesn’t get taunted. It’s amazing what the environment does for kids.
[deleted] t1_j9ms1vr wrote
[deleted]
actualtext t1_j9i2ts3 wrote
Because it creates a situation where you are taking an unequal amount of tax funds but leaving public schools to deal with the undesired students. The situation will never get better for public schools. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you need to just throw more money at public schools and get worse results but this isn't going to improve things at all for public schools.
If the argument is that charter schools are better because they aren't government run then let them play the same rules as government run schools do.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9jsoxw wrote
> If the argument is that charter schools are better because they aren't government run then let them play the same rules as government run schools do.
Let the government-run schools play by the same rules as the charter schools. Remove disruptive students (after numerous instances of misbehavior) from the general population to schools that specialize in handling children with major behavioral issues. Only when those issues are properly addressed can they be re-integrated into the general population. Leaving them in the general population with no consequences is a one-way valve; they can do vastly more damage to everyone else than any good done to them in that environment, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of union teachers in the city agree with that from firsthand experience. Here's a teachers union that advocates for removing antisocial students to specialized intensive programs: https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2003-2004/how-disruptive-students-escalate-hostility
You have to have consequences for antisocial behavior or you put these people on a fast track to jail.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kj7mw wrote
Why does the DOE choose to do the opposite though? It seems they want to see public schools fail.
supermechace t1_ja45twm wrote
Not sure if they purposely doing these things vs symptoms of dysfunctional government. From what I understand it's basically down to the byzantine politics and dysfunctional infighting and competing priorities. One of the easiest issues to understand is from what I hear is the poor relationship between teachers and "management"(principles and DOE). Then the other is that DOE management doesn't appear to be a promote from within culture based on performance, the real decision makers are political appointments who basically redo everything from scratch when they're in. Maybe the best analogy is that the school system is as dysfunctional as the MTA except the definition of success is made even muddier. Then in my opinion I feel that the system has grown so big that more authority should be given to local schools and local elected officials. The DOE and political appointee are too far removed from the neighborhoods which are basically cities onto themselves population wise.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kv97s wrote
Because Mayor McSwagger doesn’t care. He just wants to give his buddies high-paying cushy jobs.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kxtvo wrote
It didn't start with him, though.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kvdb7 wrote
> Remove disruptive students
You can’t just kick out a student. Federal law requires minors to go to school.
KaiDaiz t1_j9kvzt4 wrote
they can go to a school that can better tailor to their needs and socialize them just like high achieving students, special ed etc students are served by going to specialized schools.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kxog0 wrote
You know you could easily accomplish this by funding public schools and giving them the tools to build such an environment, right?
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9l4ibu wrote
New York public schools have the highest spending per student in the country. You need specialized schools to handle kids with behavioral problems and that need much more individualized attention.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9lbbtf wrote
no shit? We’re the biggest city in the country. I’d be surprised if we didn’t spend that amount per student. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fund them further.
KaiDaiz t1_j9kz848 wrote
What you think NYC DOE been failing all these yrs...their failures is what driving the need for charters and parents desire to put them there vs their local failing unscreened school. We wont be having this discussion if they were doing such a great job
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9kzyt0 wrote
That’s such a counterintuitive method though.
Our schools are struggling, so instead of giving them some administrative TLC, we… throw the money at schools that aren’t statistically any better at giving kids a good education and aren’t accountable to anyone? All you’ve accomplished is made everything worse without any avenue for making things better.
KaiDaiz t1_j9l0g0j wrote
Our public schools are grossly overfunded by any budget standards and failing to deliver what parents want. Its funds are simply grossly mismanaged. Parents of all color want their kids tracked. Its not a question. Parents of all colors want that non performing student spot in a screened school for their own kid for a chance to shine and rise above their non screened local public option.
View it from parents perspective especially the poor underserving communities. Continue sending their kids to the failing non screened public they too came from or take their chances with the charter in their neighborhood. ofc many will want the later.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9l44wl wrote
Overfunded how? Did you forget we live in the largest metropolitan area in the country? I’d be more shocked if we didn’t have this amount of money for a student body this big. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continually invest in it. Whatever happened to the free market with you people?
> View it from parents perspective especially the poor underserving communities. Continue sending their kids to the failing non screened public they too came from or take their chances with the charter in their neighborhood. ofc many will want the later.
Imagine those same people’s’ reactions when their kids come out no better and that they were just royally scammed through their tax dollars.
KaiDaiz t1_j9l4l64 wrote
our education budget is like 40% of our city budget... go to any alpha city...its absurdly high for the results we get from it. plenty of higher cost of living and larger metro areas around world spend way less vs we do % wise.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9lb4qt wrote
> our education budget is like 40% of our city budget...
Again, we’re the largest city in the country. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. If you’re still pissy about it, lobby the city to raise taxes and further fund the system.
> plenty of higher cost of living and larger metro areas around world spend way less vs we do % wise.
All of those places have national control of education though, so thanks for the advocacy for further federal control of education in this country 😉
KaiDaiz t1_j9lc1ld wrote
Largest does not justify the % allocated. Its natural for larger budget to spend more dollar wise but still within the typical % allocation of budget. Even among US cities, % wise is out of proportion.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9lf2pa wrote
Absolutely it does. The problem won’t be magically solved by cutting spending per student.
KaiDaiz t1_j9lg5uz wrote
If you have a large budget with most of the money not making to classrooms as evident by teachers buying supplies with their own money...its clearly a sign of mismanagement and bloat up top. The money is simply not properly allocated. Tossing more money into the pit is not going to make it any better. NYC DOE needs a reform and get their act together to provide and perform what parents want. If it takes diverting the best and promising students and funds into charters since more students are switching to them then yes the charter budget should increase for NYC DOE to realize they need to get their act together then so be it.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9m8yjf wrote
> If it takes diverting the best and promising students and funds into charters since more students are switching to them then yes the charter budget should increase for NYC DOE to realize they need to get their act together then so be it.
Lmao that’s never going to convince the DOE officials. They’re getting paid either way.
KaiDaiz t1_j9m9smf wrote
Charters and traditional public share the same overall education budget. As more students flock to charter...the NYC DOE share of the budget for public decrease. Less money = less jobs to support.
Also if we are to believe the charters cost per student at 18kish (bit too low imo) vs 28k+ for the reg public, they are more cost efficient
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9mb7ek wrote
Except they aren’t shown to do any better than public schools, so it’s not more efficient.
KaiDaiz t1_j9mc8em wrote
If we compare charter to unscreened public schools, charters will have them beat and possibly beat the screened publics in near future due to how weak the incoming classes now are due to admission changes.
Charter vs unscreen local are better comparison bc that's what's really available right now in disadvantage communities.
We already seeing more students flock to charters especially the asian demographics due to screened school admission changes.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9mda67 wrote
Lmao not even close to being true.
Those poor Asian students are going to get scammed
[deleted] t1_j9ln5tn wrote
[removed]
Curiosities t1_j9i7frb wrote
>If the argument is that charter schools are better because they aren't government run then let them play the same rules as government run schools do.
Yep, this is the only way to get a fair comparison between regular public schools and charter schools. No discrimination against disabled kids/kids with IEPs, poor kids, kids that need remedial resources and additional classes, kids who aren't scoring at grade level. It's not a legitimate better chance unless it's operating under the same rules. It's just discriminating and lining business pockets. All while treating teachers worse without unions.
koreamax t1_j9ig4ag wrote
I feel like people here think Success Academy is the only Charter. Many of them are not like that
mikevago t1_j9jyni5 wrote
Success Academy is the biggest example of "one guy ruining it for everyone" since someone put a razor blade in a piece of Halloween candy in the '70s.
My kids went to a charter in Jersey City, and not one of the knee-jerk criticisms the previous comment rattled off apply. My son had an IEP and they lavished support and resources on him. The school was more than 50% reduced lunch, they had special ed kids, they only expelled one student in my kids' 10 years there (and he was stalking and making threats against another student), and they did it all with less per-student funding than mainstream public schools and the state didn't pay for busing.
And I have no idea what business' pockets are being lined — like every charter in New York and New Jersey, the school is run by a nonprofit board. But the facts will never stand in the way of good talking points, and the "all charter schools are a corporate plot" one will never die.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kjnur wrote
>the state didn't pay for busing.
Who paid for busing? Usually students with IEPs have the right to special transportation if they need it.
johnniewelker t1_j9i8ryx wrote
I agree that ideally charter schools have the same admission requirements… however, the main reason charter schools exist is because they reject the “problem childs.”
The level of violence a kid can be subjected in the bad public schools is insane. The government has failed the public in education. Charter schools are just band aids
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j9jv1g9 wrote
Maybe public schools should enact a zero tolerance attitude for bad behavior, instead of leaving dead beat punks in the classroom. Then, maybe they'd attract higher talent.
We have no obligation to keep a disruptive student in the classroom to destroy others' education. The opportunity is there, it's those misbehaving students' choices to bypass an education.
GET. THEM. OUT.
Rottimer t1_j9icrgu wrote
The problem is that charter schools have all these options and STILL perform like shit.
So why are we making traditional public schools worse in order to give money to Charters that have not proven to do better?
Neoliberalism2024 t1_j9id8qp wrote
As much as I love paywalled NY Daily News articles from 2013, actual academic research has found them to be effective:
https://credo.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/nyc_report_2017_10_02_final.pdf
Rottimer t1_j9igak6 wrote
You should read that study, and pay particular attention to what they're comparing.
Neoliberalism2024 t1_j9jmxci wrote
It compares charter school performance to public school, and does it on a like-for-like basis (e.g., race, poverty, disability), including a break down for each.
I’m assuming you didn’t both to read it?
Rottimer t1_j9joh1c wrote
No, it doesn’t. It compares each charter school student to a supposed average of equivalent traditional public school students from the traditional public school the charter school student came from. As a result it is ignoring about a third of all traditional public schools. Because it’s measuring improvement from one year to another, it’s ignoring any child in a charter school that has been there only one year including those kicked out after a year or those that didn’t transfer from a traditional public school. The report acknowledges that the feeder schools its comparing is closer in Demographics to the traditional public school system than the students they’re comparing them to.
It’s a report that uses a convoluted system the stack the deck against traditional public schools and excuses that by arguing it’s comparing how particular students would do in public vs charter schools. And I’m not surprised when they say who funded the study.
[deleted] t1_j9mw7dm wrote
[removed]
KaiDaiz t1_j9idhvd wrote
you mean once you included the screened public schools that carries the score for entire public school system? compare charters to the local failing schools. you see why given the choice of failing local or nil spot screened public that tracks kids OR take your chance with charter...why so many opt for the later.
Rottimer t1_j9iggs4 wrote
Ahh, yes. Let's compare charters to only the worse performing schools and then take money from all traditional schools based on that comparison. That surely makes a lot of sense. . .
KaiDaiz t1_j9ih1f3 wrote
where you think most charters are operating this city? its literally the failing local public or the local charter in a poor hood
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kg5qp wrote
Why does the DOE create the situation where charter schools can kick students out for behavior, but public schools can't?
KaiDaiz t1_j9kjpen wrote
Public schools can always remove students that aren't performing on par in G&T programs, honors, enrichment, etc tracking programs and return them to gen pop. Charters are simply a version of that - where they operate as a screened school that can remove non performers from its tracking initiatives.
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9kl778 wrote
Public schools can remove a student from a program, but not from the school.
KaiDaiz t1_j9knort wrote
some charters view their entire school a program hence subject to norms we already seen in public
PuzzleheadedWalrus71 t1_j9ksoby wrote
I don't understand, can you explain?
[deleted] t1_j9kv4uc wrote
[removed]
IsayNigel t1_j9llzkw wrote
Lol username checks out.
ctindel t1_j9m3cvu wrote
The bigger problem is that they don't deal with children who have special needs and they siphon away funds from schools that do serve children with special needs. But I totally get that each parent wants their kid to go to the best school they can get.
Infinite_Carpenter t1_j9khfma wrote
Charter schools are for profit, using tax payer dollars without any oversight, with no evidence of performing better than public schools, and don’t have to actually teach anything. Charter schools aren’t good in any way. Teachers aren’t even required to have a degree.
[deleted] t1_j9mry93 wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments