40 parents fume.

amNewYork doesn’t like charter schools and is hyping a small rally against them. Take a quick look on the search engine of your choice, and you’ll see plenty of results showing that a sizable majority of NYC parents support charter schools and want more of them.

This what happen when NYC DOE continues its war on merit & tracking and letting school performance deteriorate. Parents will opt for those services in charter schools.

I'd be in support for more charter schools if they had to abide by the exact same union standards and rules that public schools have to abide by.

For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students, etc. Otherwise you basically end up in a situation where teachers in charter schools get paid less with worst benefits and charter schools get to reject students that they deem will bring the school down academically. It creates a completely unfair situation for public schools that will simply spiral down.

I don't quite understand why this is deemed acceptable use of tax dollars. Why can't the state look at the issues with public schools and address them appropriately?

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.

Charter schools absolutely should be able to reject students, that’s the whole point.

Disruptive student ruin education for everyone else.

Richer people move to richer suburbs to go to public schools where most parents are engaged parents and therefore the kids are well behaved. They then get a quality education.

Poorer kids don’t have this choice. They go to school surrounded by violent and disruptive students that make it impossible for them learn (I know this first hand from my childhood).

Charter schools provide a way for kids who actually want to learn to be in an environment where they can learn.

Public schools in nyc have been shit fot 40-50 years, and getting worse, despite spending more money than anywhere else in the USA. At this point it’s irrational to think they’ll get any better.

Poor kids who want to learn deserve an opportunity to learn. They shouldn’t be pawns of rich white people who whine “won’t someone think of the disruptive and violent students”. Send them to your rich schools in the suburbs if you care about them so much.

You're basically arguing we should keep all disruptive and violent students in public school then. Of course that creates a race to the bottom for public schools. It's an untenable situation for them. Now public schools have less funds and an even higher concentration of undesired students. The results will never get better.

I'm speaking as someone who was a product of the city public school system. I, and many others, came out just fine and were able to take advantage of what few resources were available in my public school.

If the issue are disruptive students then those students should be dealt with a taken out of the regular student population to be placed in specialized classes. That can all exist within the same public school system.

Either completely eliminate public schools and force charters to accept all students they are zoned in or don't have charters at all. This two school system is bullshit and a waste of tax payer money.

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.

"Parents." Every single one of those protestors is in the bag with the teachers union or with an organization heavily funded by the teachers' union (Make The Road, Working Families Party, etc.)

>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.

Expanding education for motivated low income people sounds like a great thing I don’t understand the hate?

> For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students, etc.

What makes you think this isn't what parents want. Kids are kicked out of charter for "behavior issues" which is basically code for not keeping up with the curve and holding the class back be it in academic performance, behavior issues, disruptions, whatever. Good amount of parents want their kids track. Its why screened public schools are more desirable vs local unscreened schools. Some charters employ a more extreme version of tracking but its not like it was never unseen in public school G&T, honors and other tracking programs. If your grades don't keep up, you not guarantee a spot in next years G&T, honors, etc class. No different what's practice in some charters, can't keep up, you get cut.

Again charter schools wouldn't be necessary if NYC DOE didn't wage war on merit & tracking the first place especially at black and brown neighborhoods. Ever wonder why some charters have some of the best performing black and brown students in the city outside of screened public schools that are not in their neighborhoods? ITs bc the NYC DOE continues to failed these students, left them with poor local choices and left these promising students untracked. The current public curriculum is subpar and watered down with screened schools never expanded despite the demand. Which drives parents to seek alternatives. Again map charter school locations, more often its located in the very same hoods as the terrible local public schools but seen by parents as a better alternative vs what they got.

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

When did you graduate and from where? The last 10 years have been bunkers. No responsible parent want their child in a title 1 school… it’s tantamount to child abuse at this point

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.

> 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.

The governor shoveling money at charter schools has nothing to do with merit or tracking, or parents for that matter. Maybe the read the article.

The problem is that charter schools have all these options and STILL perform like shit.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/charter-traditional-schools-perform-badly-new-tests-article-1.1420863

So why are we making traditional public schools worse in order to give money to Charters that have not proven to do better?

charters tracks kids...its not even a denial

But that's not what this article is about. . .

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

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.

and I'm telling you why parents opt for them...and reason why charters exists the first place

> the exact same union standards

No. Rubber rooms are not useful.

I feel like people here think Success Academy is the only Charter. Many of them are not like that

Charter School teachers don't need to be certified.

You should read that study, and pay particular attention to what they're comparing.

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. . .

And every traditional public school has to provide access to learning in Dance, Music, Theater, or Visual and Media Arts. That's also something that has nothing to do with the article linked. I take it that's what we're doing.

where you think most charters are operating this city? its literally the failing local public or the local charter in a poor hood

[removed]

This is part of the problem — they have to provide access to learning in those subjects, which is not necessarily a requirement that those kids actually learn

Why should they have to accept shitty kids? The entire point of those schools is to escape low income rugrats.

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.

So all of the other kids should suffer?

Najee just think the poor kid who should be allowed to have a chance is just as likely the perpetrator as the victim

Schools are not the best route to address social conditions.

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?

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]

> 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.

[deleted]

[deleted]

> 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.

Leaving disruptive students in the classroom ruins the education of everyone in the room including the disruptive student. Disruptive or violent kids need much more direct interventions for behavioral problems, and the other kids need a safe learning environment.

The people causing the problems in public schools are disruptive students that have no consequences, comrade. It's not some unsolvable mystery. The union teachers will all day the same thing.

[deleted]

>For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students

LOL this is one of the biggest benefits of charter schools-- for teachers, students, and parents alike.

Ask any parent who has a child @ a charter school whether or not they support the school's ability to reject disruptive students, and I guarantee you'd get a resounding "YES".

People don't like poking the elephant in the room since it is considered gauche to shit on kids, but one of the biggest reasons why NYC schools are the way they are is because a lot of students don't take education seriously and act like complete assholes.

It's not really subtle and neither was your original comment.

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.

In recent years parental choice is being championed across the country it seems, so I'm all for raising (or eliminating) the arbitrary cap on charters to give parents more choice. There seems to be big demand from parents, and I can understand why. The last time the cap was discussed there definitely seemed to be a big outpouring of support. At this point it's a fallacy to say just throwing more money at the DOE will "solve" the problems at our public schools, we already have one of the highest spending rate per student yet we still have minority children who can't read proficiently, clearly the issues are more deeply rooted and beyond simply burning money.

Every school should have a streamline protocol to reject violent or disruptive students. They are denying other responsible and respectful students' right to an education. Let them reap what they sow.

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.

You're contradicting what you and everyone else really want, which is taking the disruptive students out of class by disparaging charter schools for doing exactly that. Public schools are actively dismantling traditional punitive measures, in favor of restorative justice techniques. Those technique are exascerbating disruptive behavior in the classroom. Parents merely want an environment where kids can learn, which is mpre common in a charter school. Is that too much to ask for?

Because the money comes from the same pot as the general education one. Additionally, unlike public schools, charter schools have all sorts of issues like kicking students out that don't perform well. This essentially means you aren't really trying to educate the public, you're just subsidizing a couple of already-well-educated students while filling the pockets of the administrators.

In general, it is just not a good system and just another way to defund (truly) public services for private gains.

> 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".

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.

I'm wondering what's going on to have such a bad rate of return.

Is it just incompetence of staff? Embezzlement of funds? Or is it something else?

If we have such a high rate of spending per student, teacher horror stories of them having to buy pencils and papers for kids shouldn't be happening, as schools would have the money for it.

> the money comes from the same pot as the general education one

But so do the kids!!! The mainstream schools get less money because they're educating fewer kids! The per-student funding doesn't change!

It's like complaining that your job doesn't give you a parking stipend because you no longer have a car.

No idea friend, smarter minds then me are needed to investigate this! I would guess it is very multifaceted, between teaching styles, staffing, the culture of learning, neighborhood makeups, home life, etc. Some things are not easy to address, if you have an area with a lot of students with bad home lives, school can only do so much to help, especially if the system is rigid and can't easily give extra non-educational resources to those students. If a student simply was raised to have a disdain for education, lack respect, etc. that is not something you can easily solve with just money. Are charter curriculums better for these situations? Those are the kind of questions we'd wanna check. I'm not gonna say it's just a case of well union DOE teacher = bad, charter teacher = good. There are definitely bad teachers, regardless of school, but it goes beyond just that.

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.

>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.

As an educator who has worked in charter schools I 100% believe that as a long term solution money and support should be primarily invested in public schools. The turnover for teachers in charter schools is abysmal (like half the staff leaving within 2 years) and most teachers are recruited straight out of college. In comparison, public school teachers typically have an advanced degree and stay in their schools for the long term.

Also, charter schools have always been questionable with their methods and get away with so much (please check out survivors of Success Academy), often having abusive admin members, inflated test scores, and a lack of racial and community awareness.

This all isn’t saying that public schools are perfect - far from it. The infrastructure in many buildings are so outdated and resources are scarce, but on an operational level I think these schools can improve so much more if they are given financial and institutional support that is often diverted to charter schools.

But it isn't. The charter schools can and do kick out kids. In fact, a common tactic we hear often about is charter schools taking in X kids, then taking in Y dollars per kid (X). But then, mid-way through the year, after all the checks have gone through, they kick kids out due to low performance or "because we don't have the means to handle children with mental disabilities", but do they give the money back? No. They keep it.

So the kid is now back in public school, but the money for them isn't there, it's in the charter school.

Why does the DOE create the situation where charter schools can kick students out for behavior, but public schools can't?

Parental involvement is a requirement for charter schools, but not regular public schools. Why is this?

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.

It's not always poverty. Not everyone values the same things.

Why does the DOE choose to do the opposite though? It seems they want to see public schools fail.

>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.

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.

Public schools can remove a student from a program, but not from the school.

some charters view their entire school a program hence subject to norms we already seen in public

It’s not though. Yours is the problem. Learned helplessness.

[deleted]

I don't understand, can you explain?

Would argue most kids served by charters belong to poor families in this city. Map the schools, most are in disadvantage communities and for them its either the continuously failing local unscreened public or take their chance with local charter.

[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?”

> 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?

Doesn’t matter either way. Parents should have options of where to send their kids.

[removed]

I am not running away. I pay my taxes. That is the exact maximum I need to do.

Because Mayor McSwagger doesn’t care. He just wants to give his buddies high-paying cushy jobs.

> Remove disruptive students

You can’t just kick out a student. Federal law requires minors to go to school.

Why not let that happen in the public school system? Why is a separate school system needed?

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.

[deleted]

Why do we have specialized schools for high achieving, special needs schools, etc...its bc they have a special need and environment needed to tailor to their needs. See how these students are segregated by ability? the basis of tracking

Disruptive students need to be segregated as well. they need to be socialized before we can attempt to teach them anything meaningful

You know you could easily accomplish this by funding public schools and giving them the tools to build such an environment, right?

It didn't start with him, though.

Specialized schools are still public schools. Can't speak for special need schools because I'm not sure what those are. But I imagine they fall under the same umbrella and same rules as all public schools. Charter schools do not abide by the same rules.

Separating students isn't the issue. Using tax dollars to fund a separate school system that doesn't play by the same rules is the problem.

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

charters are still public schools difference they practice tracking more openly vs the unscreened public which parents want that the NYC DOE wage war on

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

cannot get over the grown-ass people in these comments disparaging literal CHILDREN with behavioral issues and implying that they should basically be, like, cut off from their peers? WTF if wrong with you fucking freaks? how does siloing children who clearly need intervention actually help them? fucking yikes.

i come from an upper middle class background. my little sister had plenty of behavioral problems and received in-school suspension more than once for punching boys in her grade for running their mouths at her. it turned out she had undiagnosed ADHD. rather than completely write her off, which plenty of you assholes seem to be eager to do, she got assistance. she's in her 30s now and has a degree and a good job.

> 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.

The minority group with the highest poverty rate in the city also has the highest educational attainment and educational performance. You believe poverty is the root of the problem and its just not. You have a mountain of contradictory evidence in front of you that everyone else can see and you wonder why people ignore you.

[deleted]

> 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.

> 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 😉

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.

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.

Absolutely it does. The problem won’t be magically solved by cutting spending per student.

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.

Lol username checks out.

> escape low income rugrats.

Glad we’re finally saying the quiet part out loud.

Better than the party line which is “we should deliberately fuck over my kid so I can prop up someone else”

[removed]

>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.

I'm not talking about rich people or private schools. Would you like to respond to the point that Asians in New York have the highest poverty rate and also the highest educational attainment?

[deleted]

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.

So then why take funds away from public schools to divert to charters?

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

As usual, whole lot of not teachers sharing their expert opinions on education policy.

Rubber rooms have been a non issue for years you really need to get another talking point. Schools can barely find staff as it is, how do you think it’s going to work with no unions?

Citation needed also LOL if you think the UFT would spend the money or the effort on that.

I mean you can talk to literally any educator in the system and they can tell you.

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.

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

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.

What does “folks like me” even mean?

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.

> Rubber rooms have been a non issue for years you really need to get another talking point.

Because deBlasio and Adams started reassigning them to teaching roles:

From 2017 and from 2021

> Schools can barely find staff as it is, how do you think it’s going to work with no unions?

Huh? Seems to be working fine in charter schools.

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

folks who don't even understand why charters exist...current nyc doe is doing a shiet job

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.

Because even kids with shitty parents have a right to education.

> 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?

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.

I thought they had to get a 65 out of 100?

65 doesn't mean 65% of questions correct or raw scores

How bad the problem is now

https://medium.com/@newyorkteacher/guessing-c-for-every-answer-is-now-enough-to-pass-the-new-york-state-algebra-exam-93bac55b3e24

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

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

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.

Except they aren’t shown to do any better than public schools, so it’s not more efficient.

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.

Lmao not even close to being true.

Those poor Asian students are going to get scammed

> 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.

Except yup. Both of those cities have a massive amount of suburban sprawl, so the situations aren’t comparable.

So kids with shitty parents in regular public schools, and kids with involved parents in charter schools..interesting.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[removed]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, it's easy to make that argument if you inflate the numbers ridiculously. You're not losing 30% of your kids or anywhere near that, and while public school enrollment is down, charter schools are a drop in the bucket:

Some non-made-up numbers:

Contrary to some theories, there’s no evidence that families are fleeing public schools in droves or for charters and private schools. While the city’s enrollment dropped by about 100,000 students since 2019 — not counting 3K — overall enrollment in city charter schools has grown by just over 10,000 students, or by 7.8%, since the pandemic started. And over that same time period, the city’s private schools actually saw a 3.6% drop in pre-K-12 enrollment, according to state data.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

First off, it 100% depends on the specific charter school. It is not a monolith. And I can just easily point to the public school failures in NYC. At least if a student is learning a test, they are learning.

For many students, the alternative is a public school where they will learn nothing at all.

[deleted]

> Thats the hottest worst take I have ever see

Because you have no concept of what the alternative is.

> Theres a huge movement going on in elite subrubab districts (of which I am part) to do LESS testing.

That movement is actually the dumbest things in education. For example, the UC system did a study on the SAT. They found it gave underrepresented students more opportunities and were a better indicator for college GPA than high school GPA.

No need to address the rest of your comment. Too many standardized tests is obviously bad, but having a core group of standardized tests (APs, SATs, Regents), is important for measuring student aptitude. Again, I point to this UC report.

Even if all they are learning is the test, they are learning something. The alternative is learning nothing at all for many of these kids.