Democrats against Charter schools: corruption, racism, propaganda? All?

[panamaican]

Maybe it's more complicated that that? Charter schools are quasi-public in that they are funded with tax payer dollars but they are not subject to the same oversight as public schools.

There are plenty of reasons to look more closely at the charter issue and none of it has anything to do with corruption, racism, or propaganda.

The simplest place to start is with the money that "follows" the students. The potential problem is that the school the child left has pre-existing fixed maintenance costs that are now at risk of not being sufficiently funded. So the public schools are in essence being defunded without a similar reduction in operating costs.

The 2nd issue is that because charter schools have the ability to reject students that they don't feel like dealing with, it creates the possibility that the public school ends up with fewer good students and creates a sort of classroom death spiral.

Someone might say "fine", let the good kids go to the charters. But the charters are incapable of actually admitting all of the students who apply, hence the lotteries. So, for those kids who don't win the lotto, they are relegated to classrooms with fewer like minded students and less overall funding for their facilities.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. That's not to say that charters are de facto a bad thing but it's not necessarily a good thing for those students who don't get into the charters and it's not good for education oversight if charters get to play by different rules and aren't obligated to keep all of the students like a public school is.

Anyway, it's far more complicated than the OP realizes because the OP, like many, focuses on the kids who get into charters and spends very little time on the kids who do not.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Finland consistently ranks at the top or near the top in actual educational metrics.

Notice how much higher Finland is than the "greatest country in the world" in these metrics.

The PISA rankings have Finland at #5 and US at #20:
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf

Your own source has Finland at #5. And up until recently it was #1 or #2 consistently every year.

Regardless, they have a very highly regarded educational system and one of its qualities is that charter schools have been completely outlawed there,. They suck in the US and they suck everywhere, because they are a scam designed to siphon tax money towards rich students at the expense of the poorer ones. Which is why countries who are better educated dont use them.

LOL you post a graphic PROVING I AM RIGHT ABOUT YOU BEING WRONG??? LOL.

So 1 you admit that you are wrong about Finland being #1 in education

Now 2, do you have any evidence that regular public schools do better than charter schools in the same district?

Because I hear you spazzing like a female on her period, but no facts.

" because they know that charter schools suck"
- what proof do you have of this? and what proof do you have that is the case in the USA, where I am talking about?

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Maybe it's more complicated that that? Charter schools are quasi-public in that they are funded with tax payer dollars but they are not subject to the same oversight as public schools.

There are plenty of reasons to look more closely at the charter issue and none of it has anything to do with corruption, racism, or propaganda.

The simplest place to start is with the money that "follows" the students. The potential problem is that the school the child left has pre-existing fixed maintenance costs that are now at risk of not being sufficiently funded. So the public schools are in essence being defunded without a similar reduction in operating costs.

The 2nd issue is that because charter schools have the ability to reject students that they don't feel like dealing with, it creates the possibility that the public school ends up with fewer good students and creates a sort of classroom death spiral.

Someone might say "fine", let the good kids go to the charters. But the charters are incapable of actually admitting all of the students who apply, hence the lotteries. So, for those kids who don't win the lotto, they are relegated to classrooms with fewer like minded students and less overall funding for their facilities.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. That's not to say that charters are de facto a bad thing but it's not necessarily a good thing for those students who don't get into the charters and it's not good for education oversight if charters get to play by different rules and aren't obligated to keep all of the students like a public school is.

Anyway, it's far more complicated than the OP realizes because the OP, like many, focuses on the kids who get into charters and spends very little time on the kids who do not.

1) Yes, if the regular public school sucks enough that people want to go to charters, then yes they should take their money with them. Sorry if you want the kids to suffer because you don't want the bloated pub schools to miss out on money

2) Yes, charter schools have to do the lottery because there are not enough of them. This is how bad the regular public schools are.

3) throwing money at pubs does not mean they are going to get any better
"or instance, "California, which ranks 45th in the nation in reading and math despite spending over 55 billion dollars a year on education." "That’s over 52% of the state’s total budget," Friederichs said."

4) We know that COMPETITION creates a better product and reduces costs, so why not have it in schools as well? From the research I saw, even the pubs near charter schools became better due to 1) having to compete to keep kids 2) some innovations from charters that the pubs copied

5) "The 2nd issue is that because charter schools have the ability to reject students that they don't feel like dealing with"
- so can pubs, unless you never heard of alternative school

6) "public school ends up with fewer good students"
- only if the pubs are not living up to what the charters can provide

7) "Anyway, it's far more complicated than the OP realizes because the OP, like many, focuses on the kids who get into charters and spends very little time on the kids who do not."
- what am I not realizing exactly. I already said the money follows the kid which is what it should be.
- I am spending more time on charter kids because this thread is about charter schools.
PS I spent 5 years contracted by the NYC board of education working 87% and 90% poverty schools, so just tell me what I don't know about kids in the regular pubs.

But you give me all the PROOF of charter school not outperforming pubs, and then when you can't, tell me why low income and minority students should not be able to get out of failing schools with out sounding like a racist or genocidal utopian.
I give a fuck about kids. You give a fuck about institutions.

 

[panamaican]

1) Yes, if the regular public school sucks enough that people want to go to charters, then yes they should take their money with them. Sorry if you want the kids to suffer because you don't want the bloated pub schools to miss out on money

2) Yes, charter schools have to do the lottery because there are not enough of them. This is how bad the regular public schools are.

3) throwing money at pubs does not mean they are going to get any better
"or instance, "California, which ranks 45th in the nation in reading and math despite spending over 55 billion dollars a year on education." "That’s over 52% of the state’s total budget," Friederichs said."

4) We know that COMPETITION creates a better product and reduces costs, so why not have it in schools as well? From the research I saw, even the pubs near charter schools became better due to 1) having to compete to keep kids 2) some innovations from charters that the pubs copied

5) "The 2nd issue is that because charter schools have the ability to reject students that they don't feel like dealing with"
- so can pubs, unless you never heard of alternative school

6) "public school ends up with fewer good students"
- only if the pubs are not living up to what the charters can provide

7) "Anyway, it's far more complicated than the OP realizes because the OP, like many, focuses on the kids who get into charters and spends very little time on the kids who do not."
- what am I not realizing exactly. I already said the money follows the kid which is what it should be.
- I am spending more time on charter kids because this thread is about charter schools.
PS I spent 5 years contracted by the NYC board of education working 87% and 90% poverty schools, so just tell me what I don't know about kids in the regular pubs.

But you give me all the PROOF of charter school not outperforming pubs, and then when you can't, tell me why low income and minority students should not be able to get out of failing schools with out sounding like a racist or genocidal utopian.
I give a fuck about kids. You give a fuck about institutions.

That was lengthy but you didn't actually address anything I said. You repeated your points without addressing the specifics of mine. Retyping my points is not the same as addressing them.

You then ask for proof of something that I never said. Why would I provide proof of a statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the specific points of concern I raised.

It's impossible to have a conversation if you're just going to ignore what I typed.

 

[luckyshot]

why does everyone act as if all states have teacher unions?

the charter school lobby is clouding people's Fing brains. theyre just rebranded public schools that can turn certain students away if they want. which makes it even more amazing when one fails....you arent even taking the most difficult students.

And the really ironic thing is that if you look at state-by-state academic performance, most of the TOP performing states are strong union states, while most of the poor performing states are "right to work" (aka, right to work cheap).

Then people run around claiming strong unions hurt the quality of education, and I just scratch my head. It's a case of ideology totally ignoring facts, but really why should that surprise us at this point?

Back to the charter school topic, you can't paint with too wide a brush. Some charters are good, solid schools while others are really, really shady fly-by-night for profit operations that are open and closed in a couple of years. The charter model itself is certainly not some silver bullet that is going to fix education, and underlying lack of regulation within the model leads to huge problems over the long haul.

 

[floivanus]

Finland consistently ranks at the top or near the top in actual educational metrics.

Notice how much higher Finland is than the "greatest country in the world" in these metrics.

The PISA rankings have Finland at #5 and US at #20:
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf

Your own source has Finland at #5. And up until recently it was #1 or #2 consistently every year.

Regardless, they have a very highly regarded educational system and one of its qualities is that charter schools have been completely outlawed there, because they know that charter schools suck. They suck in the US and they suck everywhere, because they are a scam designed to siphon tax money towards rich students at the expense of the poorer ones. Which is why countries who are better educated dont use them.

Fun key at the top of the page describing the color code. Take math, you have the dark blue as significantly higher than the US with lithuania scoring 478. But hungary is scored as NOT significantly higher than the US at 477, US scored 470. And the spread between the US and the 'significantly higher' crowd changes between each chart. 10 points on math, 8 points between the other charts. What metrics did they use to come up with this? I'm not aware of any standardized test between all countries.

Forget the charting, fact is, the US has begun falling behind in these three areas SINCE we have had a government run DOE, changing standards and how things are done over and over again. Every few years they either change how we are to do things, OR incentivize schools to fail less kids OR lose funding.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

LOL you post a graphic PROVING I AM RIGHT ABOUT YOU BEING WRONG??? LOL.

So 1 you admit that you are wrong about Finland being #1 in education

Now 2, do you have any evidence that regular public schools do better than charter schools in the same district?

Because I hear you spazzing like a female on her period, but no facts.

" because they know that charter schools suck"
- what proof do you have of this? and what proof do you have that is the case in the USA, where I am talking about?

Trying to prove that you are incapable of a civil discussion ?

Perhaps the insult you directed at him is better applied to yourself ..

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

LOL you post a graphic PROVING I AM RIGHT ABOUT YOU BEING WRONG??? LOL.

Im not wrong at all. Finland for the last two decades was regarded as #1 in education metrics along with South Korea. In the last few years, it has slipped in some rankings, which I mentioned, but is still consistently in the top 5.

The World Economic Forum still ranks Finland as #1:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/11-best-school-systems-in-the-world-a7425391.html

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016...t-education-systems-four-ways-it-beats-the-us

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/

From the article: "Finland routinely tops rankings of global education systems and is famous for having no banding systems — all pupils, regardless of ability, are taught in the same classes. As a result, the gap between the weakest and the strongest pupils is the smallest in the world. "



Funny, that you would laugh at that but not at the greatest country in the worlds measly #20 ranking. <Lmaoo>

Probably because your privatization argument is so bad you have to nitpick at minutiae to feel as though youre winning. Finland consistently ranks higher and they have OUTLAWED charter and private schools.

- what proof do you have of this?

We have proof in the fact that Finland and mostly every other country that ranks higher than Mur-ka does it with a purely public system. What is your explanation for this? And how can you argue that your zhit privatisation system which intentionally tries to accept only the best students to make their scores look better and siphons money to rich students is better when it has such a zhitty ranking compared to Finland and other pure public countries? What makes these zhitty charter schools magically work in the US when they dont work anywhere else?

Im expecting you to say something about Finland doesnt have any black students which bring their average down or something like that.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Non-White Millennials Stun Teachers' Unions: Huge Majority Favor School Vouchers
A new survey shows a huge majority of non-white millennials have gotten fed up with the public school system in America, and are championing something sure to infuriate Democrats and teachers’ unions bent on public school indoctrination: publicly-funded vouchers for students’ tuition at private schools.

The GenForward Project at the University of Chicago produced the survey, which found 79% of blacks, 76% of Asian-Americans, and 77% of Latinos support vouchers for low-income students to attend private schools. 66% of whites agreed.

Further, 65% of blacks supported charter schools, as did 61% of Asian-Americans and 58% of Latinos. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, roughly 3.1 million students attend charter schools nationwide.

On the other hand, millennials still harbor leftist perspectives regarding college: over two-thirds of them support free tuition at public colleges. Additionally, large majorities of them supported “limiting, in at least extreme cases, offensive speech on college campuses.” And finally, they still favor throwing money into education, supporting an increase in school funding and teacher pay.

According to the survey, roughly 19% of millennials identified as Latino, 13% as black, and 6% as Asian-American. All of the groups, white and non-white, leaned toward giving public schools in their communities a “C” grade.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20931/non-white-millennials-stun-teachers-unions-huge-hank-berrien

 

[djacobox372]

Fact Correction:

Charter schools do not outperform public schools, in fact only around 25% of them do better, meaning 75% do worse or the same. Source: http://credo.stanford.edu/

Why would we support something that is WORSE than what we already have?

People always talk about how privatizing something makes it cheaper/better, when all the evidence points the other direction.

 

[ReAnimator Reagan]

Fact Correction:

Charter schools do not outperform public schools, in fact only around 25% of them do better, meaning 75% do worse or the same. Source: http://credo.stanford.edu/

Why would we support something that is WORSE than what we already have?

People always talk about how privatizing something makes it cheaper/better, when all the evidence points the other direction.

Your link provides nothing and does not refute anything I posted with actual facts that you can read right here.

LOL, I see why you didn't actually quote/cite a source off it because the page leads to nothing about the subject

Nice try

But hey, if you want some info that is from the Standford cite, it is in MY EARLIER POST

AGAIN!

"To be sure, Michigan has some high-performing charter schools, too. DeVos supporterspoint to a 2013 Stanford study that found that Michigan charter-school students are learning at a faster rate in reading and math than their public-school peers — seeing an additional two months of gains in each subject. Gains for Detroit charter-school students were greater, at three months."

"Michigan permits practices barred by some other states, such as for-profit charter operators, virtual charter schools and multiple charter-authorizing bodies. Along the way, fraud and waste has been a problem — one charter school spent more than $1 million on acquiring swampland it doesn’t use, The Detroit Free Press has reported. A federal audit this year noted that Michigan’s charter-school law doesn’t include rules regarding conflicts of interest, among other issues."

"To be sure, Michigan has some high-performing charter schools, too. DeVos supporterspoint to a 2013 Stanford study that found that Michigan charter-school students are learning at a faster rate in reading and math than their public-school peers — seeing an additional two months of gains in each subject. Gains for Detroit charter-school students were greater, at three months."


PS Unlike you I actually give a fuck about these kids and am not some IDEOLOGUE who cares nothing about the truth.
I want these kids to be smart and succeed and be able to think for themselves and make a lot of money because I don't to have to give them handouts or pay for their jail cell.