How Good Are Charter Schools For the Public School System?

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,874
Reputation
4,381
Daps
88,941
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
"'You go to these charters,' gushed Bill Gates in 2010, 'and you sit and talk to these kids about how engaged they are with adults and how much they read and what they think about and how they do projects together.' Four years later, Gates istapping his Foundation to bring charter schools to Washington State, doling out grants that included $4.25 million for HP CEO Meg Whitman's Summit Public Schools. So what's not to like? Plenty, according to Salon's The Truth About Charter Schools, in which Jeff Bryant delves into the dark side of the charter movement, including allegations of abuse, corruption, lousy instruction, and worse results. Also troubling Bryant is that the children of the charter world's biggest cheerleaders seem never to attend these schools ('A family like mine should not use up the inner-city capacity of these great schools,' was Bill Gates' excuse). Bryant also cites Rethinking Schools' Stan Karp, who argues that Charter Schools Are Undermining the Future of Public Education, functioning more like deregulated 'enterprise zones' than models of reform,providing subsidized spaces for a few at the expense of the many. 'Our country has already had more than enough experience with separate and unequal school systems,' Karp writes. 'The counterfeit claim that charter privatization is part of a new 'civil rights movement', addressing the deep and historic inequality that surrounds our schools, is belied by the real impact of rapid charter growth in cities across the country. At the level of state and federal education policy, charters are providing a reform cover for eroding the public school system and an investment opportunity for those who see education as a business rather than a fundamental institution of democratic civic life. It's time to put the brakes on charter expansion and refocus public policy on providing excellent public schools for all.'"
 

Street Knowledge

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,292
Reputation
1,718
Daps
57,894
Reppin
NYC
It's all about making money, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that just keep it real
 

aRoMaN21

over 14 years in the shade...
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
10,199
Reputation
-245
Daps
3,480
Certain charter schools in certain areas are for the upper class kids. So I feel if their parents have the funds for education for their children, they should be paying to send their child to the charter school. :manny:
Why should schools who sometimes have a majority of "rich" kids get public funding? :what:
 

Rawtid

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
43,323
Reputation
14,608
Daps
119,418
I don't think the government should be in charge of education period. They don't have the resources to sustain the need. I don't know if they just lease out the buildings and be in charge of just the infrastructure or something but I'd rather have charter schools or private companies that have the freedom to use a curriculum that works best based on the needs of their students rather than having one generic standard for all schools and trying to push them towards that.
 

dax

Rookie
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
118
Reputation
40
Daps
82
I went to a charter for a year and it was the worst experience of my life. It was a school for losers who failed at regular school. Yes their standards were low. I was taught below my level and when I went back to public school had to take a class a grade below me. Charters aren't all perfect. And some public schools are better than charters.
 

PikaDaDon

Thunderbolt Them Suckers
Joined
Oct 13, 2012
Messages
9,361
Reputation
2,355
Daps
25,317
Reppin
NULL
I'm strongly against institutionalized education. This post pretty much sums up my views:

Having taken numerous exams in my life, I've found that they work against human-nature. In that, people tend to function best in relaxed, low-pressure situations. Yet, exams place young people (children and teenagers) in extremely high-pressure situations, where the outcome of two hours has severe implications, upon the rest of their lives? I mean, exam conditions are like being in a pressure cooker. You can't talk, can't confer and you can't listen to music... You're given a time-limit, with adults stalking around you, making sure you don't 'cheat'. I mean, how is that atmosphere conducive to expression, free-thinking and articulation? Some will argue that if you study, you will perform better in exams, but what if learning from books and memorising those books is not your strong-suit? Yes, it is vital to learn in classes, in order to perform well in exams, but what if the high-pressure situation causes you to panic, forget or just not function as confidently as you would do in classes?

As such, I think that exams are designed for a certain type of mind; a rigid, disciplined mind, which is capable of memorising information and regurgitating that information effectively, and how many teenagers have a mind like that? Some people develop this kind of mentality later in life, but by then, its too late to pursue education, because they have adult life to deal with, and adult education is too expensive to pursue... The mind of a teenager, is preoccupied with many thoughts and feelings, therefore I think that teenage years are hardly the best time, to sit them down in an awful, timed, static environment, and expect to get the best from them, and furthermore, base their intellectual ability, upon those two or so hours? As a teenager, I wasn't focused upon education, because I was busy living a 'cool' teenager's life. But if you placed those same exams in front of me now, gave me time to learn the material, and allowed me to do them in my own time, and favourable conditions, they wouldn't even present the slightest challenge.

The overarching point, is that people learn in many different ways, and vitality - at different rates. Therefore, in considering this, how reasonable & logical is it, to test everyone under the same conditions?
 

Crakface

...
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
18,500
Reputation
1,530
Daps
25,708
Reppin
L.A
Charter schools just help the white man gentrify black neighborhoods.

They move the black kids out of the public school and into the charter school

White man sees the public school is functioning under capacity

School gets closed.

White folks take over the school

Property goes up as more resources are given to make sure cacs can get a safe quality education

Black people can no longer afford to move into the neighborhood.

Black people cash out on their homes to cacs

Cacs move in

Starbucks pops up

Neighborhood belongs to cacs.
 

theworldismine13

God Emperor of SOHH
Bushed
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,662
Reputation
540
Daps
22,598
Reppin
Arrakis
the public school system should be destroyed and charters are the first step in that destruction
 

Domingo Halliburton

Handmade in USA
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
12,614
Reputation
1,370
Daps
15,449
Reppin
Brooklyn Without Limits
Charter schools just help the white man gentrify black neighborhoods.

They move the black kids out of the public school and into the charter school

White man sees the public school is functioning under capacity

School gets closed.

White folks take over the school

Property goes up as more resources are given to make sure cacs can get a safe quality education

Black people can no longer afford to move into the neighborhood.

Black people cash out on their homes to cacs

Cacs move in

Starbucks pops up

Neighborhood belongs to cacs.

what made you up this?

I see no problems with providing other options than your local public school.

I do think its bullshyt the way they pretty much draw tax dollars from public schools but we got a devise a better plan where we allocate public dollars to the schools more effectively.
 
Top