Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
it's better, until that charter school closes after a year or two... which appears to happen too much.
There certainly are plenty of patents that want a rigorous education. There are several markets out there. The parents spending $30k on tuition are doing so as much for the education as they are for the fact that their kids will be with other families who are spending $30k on education. The schools are better schools because they have more affluent kids with more resources and very involved parents. That's the advantage charter schools have as well. They get the parents who care enough about education to try and seek something they perceive as better. The families and students that are taken advantage of are lower SES and immigrants because they often aren't educated themselves. If you don't speak English well or don't have a high school diploma you will have a tough time understanding if your child is learning what they should be learning.
Because as numerous studies point out the majority of charter schools perform at the same level as the public schools they are trying to replace. Or worse in an awful lot of cases.
But has the "profit motive" really created better schools? Seems like most of the bad charter schools have ties to management companies motivated by profit. How many of the "good" charter schools were created from a profit motive?
not sure what you mean by "real education".
K-2, wonder. 3-7 rote, 8-9 fiddle while hormones burn, 10-12 choose. Simple really. There's not a second of the learn-to-hunt years in a classroom, brain-development-wise, that should be anything but boot. The brain is simply a bucket during that period and leaving it less than full is a crime against humanity. And it's 5 Rs - remembering & reciting pretty much got forgot by the time I then you hit the chalkboards and brain science will one day find that they're the most important ones.
I don't see the problem with for-profit charters, non-profit charters, public schools, or private schools. What a for-profit charter pays out to investors can be more or less than a public school district absorbs in bureaucracy. It makes no difference. There are good and bad examples in each category.
I lean Conservative and think he's hysterical. Don't always agree with him but I applaud the effort and I typically chuckle and laugh a lot. And sometimes I want to choke him thru the TV. He's entertaining if nothing else.
That's the one I worked for when I started-Miami Beach and had 48 in a classroom. They get results because they have a strong Principal there, I was lucky in that sense.
He needs someone who think 180 to balance but then you have 2 people fighting and nothing good is discussed.
Corruption is everywhere and there is plenty of it in public schools. Some of the public school corruption is stealing and that will always exist. No matter what line of work, public or private, there will be people who break the law for their own personal gain. There will always be teachers stealing from a class fundraiser or a principal accepting kickbacks from a educational publishing company or a tech director using school money to get iPads for his family. Those things happen in most profession because people are greedy.
Outstanding, agree with a lot here. I know I am lighting up the charter schools, truth is some or more than a few have made a major difference. But again, it's Florida and you can smell corruption in these places. Maybe in better moral sections of the country, the money is spent the right way.
No, maybe New Orleans is different. Charter schools in most places have the autonomy to have different curricula, different school schedules, etc. In D.C., for example, the regular school board doesn't even oversee charter schools, there is a completely separate Charter School Board that authorizes and monitors charter schools.
NOLA charters are different because they have become the de facto school district for the community. Charters elsewhere have wide discretion as to their rules and obligations. In NYC, for example, some charters are running almost all year programs. The teachers hired have to work crazy hours (nights, weekends, etc) to support those schools. With other charters, they have may waivers on state tests (3 years is common), which is fine with established charters, but new ones - with no experience in running a school? - are effectively rolling the dice with a child's education. In some districts, like Chicago, charters are thriving because it allows districts to layoff employees (including teachers) and simply shift the financial burden to educate children to another provider. It frees the district up on some level.fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Interesting. I do know one of the issues in some Charters is teachers pay. While you'd prefer the market work that out, especially early on with Charters, there's just not enough competition.
Sadly, not unexpected. Business will be business. Some, as an ethos, do things the right way. Some don't see right vs wrong. Others just don't care. Worse still, some purposely dance on the side of shady as a practice to gain their competitive advantage.
Interesting...thanks.wazoo11 said:
We talked about Hempstead Schools before... quite literally, if you live in Hempstead Village (which means a high chance of poverty, or at best limited economic means), a place where they recently had a 30% graduation rate, your ONLY choice as a parent is parochial/private school for which you likely don't have the money or the Charter school.
I'm all for the "x amount of $ per kid", let the schools compete for the students/money philosophy.
Yes...but how much of the failure of Hempstead schools has the utterly corrupt board? I don't know first hand but wasn't the lady who headed it taking school funds for cars and vacations and other illegal activity? And she kept on getting voted in? (again, I don't know 100% of the specifics)
Not going to say our public education system is perfect, but I would rather have it as is than open the door to the free market. It should be about the kids and their education, not making profits. One thing a lot of people never mention about private schools is that they exclude a large part of the demographic that the public schools have to deal with. I live in a nicer area that has good public schools and our charter school is a total disaster. There are embezzlement, fraud and child abuse charges pending and they just fired a bunch of teachers who refused to come to work because they weren't getting paid, all while they are paying bonuses to new teachers they are hiring. One of my good friends has their twins enrolled there and they are on their third teacher because they either get laid off or quit. Say what you want about teacher unions, but the last thing you want is your child's teacher quitting mid-year.
My daughter's school has a surprising amount of crappy teachers considering it's a highly regarded school. The parents can simply overpower the ineptitude in some areas though. Seems quite different than your wife's situation.
Many of them are non-profit and I imagine they run leaner on administration.
True. Michigan is dominated by for profits. Even non-profits tend to have very large executive salaries with the presidents making double or triple what a super intendent makes while serving like 1% of the number of students. Teachers get crap pay, crap benefits. In 25 years, we won't have enough teachers to support the education system. Michigan which has always been a very lucrative place for teachers is struggling to meet demand in areas like math and science. The State Board of Ed has begun watering down standards for classes like physics and chemistry because they don't have enough teachers to teach it.
