How Good Are Charter Schools For the Public School System?

[theworldismine13]

LOL, I'm done.

Goodluck, Jon Jon.

Yeah you are done

 

[acri1]

its already happening in new orleans
New Orleans goes all in on charter schools. Is it showing the way? - CSMonitor.com

for blacks students charter schools are consistently better, the studies showing little difference are studies that compare charter schools generally across all populations including whites, but for black kids charter schools show that they are better

You completely missed the point. The point is that most black kids are not going to go to charter schools at any point in your lifetime; most black kids are going to go to public school. Whether you like it or not that's a fact.

So advocating Charter Schools is not going to do anything for the vast majority of kids that will go to public school regardless. There are many kids out there whose parent's aren't interested enough to enroll them in anything other than public schools. The only way to really change things is to make public schools better. What you advocate is only going to help a tiny minority of students, often at the expense of the rest of them.

i dont see what your point is, there is nothing wrong with home school if that is the parent's choice, the girl that graduated from college before she graduated from high school was home schooled, and its something people should consider if they do not think the public school is good enough

my overall point is that we need maximum school choice, that means charters schools, vouchers, home schooling and even public schools if they are performing well, and if you dont like your choices then get together with somebody and open up your own school

there should be a plethora of choices, its amazing how many people defend the public school system, to the point where you have to downplay daily violence against black children and when the public school system has destroyed and oppressed millions of black minds, the public school system should be destroyed and rebuilt around independent charters schools and vouchers

So now violence is public schools' fault? Public schools are "oppressing" black minds?

You're scapegoating public schools for problems that exist outside of them. If you open a school in a poor neighborhood with a lot of violent crime, then there are likely to be issues with violence in schools. If you open a public school in a low-crime, affluent neighborhood, then there probably won't be much violence. Charter schools are not any different.

It's ridiculous to blame public schools for the neighborhoods they exist in. Schools don't exist in some kind of vacuum where they're immune to the state of the surrounding neighborhood. That's like blaming a convenience store in a bad neighborhood for getting robbed a lot.

 

[theworldismine13]

You completely missed the point. The point is that most black kids are not going to go to charter schools at any point in your lifetime; most black kids are going to go to public school. Whether you like it or not that's a fact.

So advocating Charter Schools is not going to do anything for the vast majority of kids that will go to public school regardless. There are many kids out there whose parent's aren't interested enough to enroll them in anything other than public schools. The only way to really change things is to make public schools better. What you advocate is only going to help a tiny minority of students, often at the expense of the rest of them.

what point did i miss? im saying the public school should be eliminated, its obviously not going to happen overnight, it would take years or even decades, but eventually the public system can be pretty much eliminated

technically speaking charter schools are public school anyways

and you cannot make public schools better using the same system that ruined the school in the first place

So now violence is public schools' fault? Public schools are "oppressing" black minds?

You're scapegoating public schools for problems that exist outside of them. If you open a school in a poor neighborhood with a lot of violent crime, then there are likely to be issues with violence in schools. If you open a public school in a low-crime, affluent neighborhood, then there probably won't be much violence. Charter schools are not any different.

It's ridiculous to blame public schools for the neighborhoods they exist in. Schools don't exist in some kind of vacuum where they're immune to the state of the surrounding neighborhood. That's like blaming a convenience store in a bad neighborhood for getting robbed a lot.

well to answer your question yeah the school is responsible for violence, if they cant handle the violence then the school should be shut down

and yes the public school system has killed and oppressed a lot of young black minds going back 100 years, do you even know your history?

im not not scapegoating, im putting responsibility where it belongs

but that is neither here nor there because that wasnt even my point, my point was that i was astounded that the poster said that the "only difference" was the violence, i found that to be an amazing statement, asif violence in chool was a minor thing, if there is a school where violence is happening on a daily basis, that school should be shut down or the administration should be changed

 

[acri1]

what point did i miss? im saying the public school should be eliminated, its obviously not going to happen overnight, it would take years or even decades, but eventually the public system can be pretty much eliminated

Point is that most black kids attend public schools and will for the foreseeable future. Taking resources away from public schools to fund charter schools and/or giving up on improving public schools would be to the detriment of most of these kids.

technically speaking charter schools are public school anyways

and you cannot make public schools better using the same system that ruined the school in the first place

What system is this?

well to answer your question yeah the school is responsible for violence, if they cant handle the violence then the school should be shut down

I don't disagree with the idea that things need to be changed if a school has issues with violence. But you still haven't given any good reason as to why you're acting as if this problem is inherent to public schools only, as if charter/private schools are somehow immune to violence.

and yes the public school system has killed and oppressed a lot of young black minds going back 100 years, do you even know your history?

im not not scapegoating, im putting responsibility where it belongs

What history is this? Please, kick some knowledge.

I know about how various laws/people/schools/administrations have done that, but I don't know how "public schools" in general have or how charter schools would be immune to this.

 

[theworldismine13]

Point is that most black kids attend public schools and will for the foreseeable future. Taking resources away from public schools to fund charter schools and/or giving up on improving public schools would be to the detriment of most of these kids.

no its not, that is just something you are making up, there is no evidence of charter schools taking funds away from public schools, and there is no evidence that putting more money into public schools is the solution

What system is this?

the system that says you have to go to a particular school with very little school choice, a system where schools are ran and micro managed from a central location and a system that doesnt let teachers and administrator innovate and implement new ideas, a restrictive suffocating system

I don't disagree with the idea that things need to be changed if a school has issues with violence. But you still haven't given any good reason as to why you're acting as if this problem is inherent to public schools only, as if charter/private schools are somehow immune to violence.

i have no idea what you mean, i was responding to a post where the poster said that the only difference between the charter and the public is school was the level of violence, i simply was astounded that under his analysis the level of education was the same

i think you are putting words in my mouth and not responding to what i actually said

maybe you can explain to me how 2 schools that have the same curriculum and even same performance are the same when one is filled with daily violence and one isnt?

 

[theworldismine13]

What history is this? Please, kick some knowledge.

I know about how various laws/people/schools/administrations have done that, but I don't know how "public schools" in general have or how charter schools would be immune to this.

in theory charters are immune because anybody can open up a charter to implement new innovative ideas about education and any parent can put their ichild in if they like the school or out if they are not satisfied, obviously its just theory, but its better than the central administration model used by most public schools

 

[acri1]

no its not, that is just something you are making up, there is no evidence of charter schools taking funds away from public schools, and there is no evidence that putting more money into public schools is the solution

Moody's: Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas

The dramatic rise in charter school enrollments over the past decade is likely to create negative credit pressure on school districts in economically weak urban areas, says Moody's Investors Service in a new report. Charter schools tend to proliferate in areas where school districts already show a degree of underlying economic and demographic stress, says Moody's in the report "Charter Schools Pose Growing Risks for Urban Public Schools."

"While the vast majority of traditional public districts are managing through the rise of charter schools without a negative credit impact, a small but growing number face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters," says Michael D'Arcy, one of two authors of the report.

Charter schools can pull students and revenues away from districts faster than the districts can reduce their costs, says Moody's. As some of these districts trim costs to balance out declining revenues, cuts in programs and services will further drive students to seek alternative institutions including charter schools.

Many older, urban areas that have experienced population and tax base losses, creating stress for their local school districts, have also been areas where charter schools have proliferated, says Moody's. Among the cities where over a fifth of the students are enrolled in charter schools are Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Nationwide about one in 20 students is in a charter school.

^Snippet from the link


And I didn't say anything about putting "more money" into public schools being "the solution", only that taking funding away from them can be problematic. If Charter Schools took off they way you hope, then the kids left behind in public schools would be even worse off.

the system that says you have to go to a particular school with very little school choice, a system where schools are ran and micro managed from a central location and a system that doesnt let teachers and administrator innovate and implement new ideas, a restrictive suffocating system

Well, the "very little" choice thing varies depending on your school district. I went to public schools as a kid but my mom had little problem enrolling me in a different one when she found the one I was at unsatisfactory. In fact I changed schools several times.

For high school, I actually went to a magnet school downtown that you had to take a test to get in. There are several schools like that in Detroit (Cass, King, Renaissance) but they're all still considered public and if you are accepted into multiple ones, you can go to whichever one you want. And these schools are considered better than most if not all charter schools in Detroit. So I wouldn't say there's no choice in the current public school system.

Now, if you advocate more choice in public schools, I'd probably be inclined to agree. I just don't agree that charter schools are inherently better than public schools in any way and could be worse in some. You say that "anyone can open up a charter school to implement innovative ideas" but that also means that anyone could open one, whether their ideas are good, bad, or completely crazy. The lack of accountability or standardization could also be a very bad things, as a charter school could basically teach kids whatever they want with little accountability.

i have no idea what you mean, i was responding to a post where the poster said that the only difference between the charter and the public is school was the level of violence, i simply was astounded that under his analysis the level of education was the same

i think you are putting words in my mouth and not responding to what i actually said

maybe you can explain to me how 2 schools that have the same curriculum and even same performance are the same when one is filled with daily violence and one isnt?

They're not, my point was just that there's nothing that makes public schools inherently more violent. Charter schools are selective and tend to filter the "problem" kids out. If we switched to a system of all charter schools, there's no real reason that they'd be any less violent than public schools are now.

 

[theworldismine13]

Moody's: Charter schools pose greatest credit challenge to school districts in economically weak urban areas


^Snippet from the link


And I didn't say anything about putting "more money" into public schools being "the solution", only that taking funding away from them can be problematic. If Charter Schools took off they way you hope, then the kids left behind in public schools would be even worse off.

the link is a credit risk report, its talking about what MIGHT or COULD happen, so its not really saying anything

and the point is to eliminate the public school system, the point isnt to keep it alive, if the schools are losing money because students are switching to charters....so what? i consider that to be a good thing and another big step toward closing down the old public school system

Well, the "very little" choice thing varies depending on your school district. I went to public schools as a kid but my mom had little problem enrolling me in a different one when she found the one I was at unsatisfactory. In fact I changed schools several times.

For high school, I actually went to a magnet school downtown that you had to take a test to get in. There are several schools like that in Detroit (Cass, King, Renaissance) but they're all still considered public and if you are accepted into multiple ones, you can go to whichever one you want. And these schools are considered better than most if not all charter schools in Detroit. So I wouldn't say there's no choice in the current public school system.

Now, if you advocate more choice in public schools, I'd probably be inclined to agree. I just don't agree that charter schools are inherently better than public schools in any way and could be worse in some. You say that "anyone can open up a charter school to implement innovative ideas" but that also means that anyone could open one, whether their ideas are good, bad, or completely crazy. The lack of accountability or standardization could also be a very bad things, as a charter school could basically teach kids whatever they want with little accountability.

im not sure what your point is, you seem to be avoiding the fact that detroit has some of the worst public schools in the country, from what i remember its not even run by the city, the dropuout rate at some schools was exceeding 50%, its a prime example of a system that should be shut down and a system that has failed the city, hopefully it has improved some with the expansion of charter schools

They're not, my point was just that there's nothing that makes public schools inherently more violent. Charter schools are selective and tend to filter the "problem" kids out. If we switched to a system of all charter schools, there's no real reason that they'd be any less violent than public schools are now.
and yeah anyone can open up a charter, that is the whole point

i never said anything about charters being more or less violent, what i said is that violence is unacceptable and if schools have a problem with violence it should be shut down or the administration changed

and i was astounded that stupidquestion did not take the level of violence into account in evaluating a school

 

[acri1]

the link is a credit risk report, its talking about what MIGHT or COULD happen, so its not really saying anything

and the point is to eliminate the public school system, the point isnt to keep it alive, if the schools are losing money because students are switching to charters....so what? i consider that to be a good thing and another big step toward closing down the old public school system

It'd be screwing over the kids who are still in public schools though. And it's unlikely that we'd ever completely close down the "old public school" system, a more likely scenario is simply a larger percentage of students going to charter schools.

im not sure what your point is, you seem to be avoiding the fact that detroit has some of the worst public schools in the country, from what i remember its not even run by the city, the dropuout rate at some schools was exceeding 50%, its a prime example of a system that should be shut down and a system that has failed the city, hopefully it has improved some with the expansion of charter schoolsl

My point is that

1. Not all public schools are bad, even in Detroit
2. You can have choice in public schools


And you're still failing to give any substantial reason at all as to why charter schools would be better. All you've said so far is "choice", which you can have in public schools, and "innovation" which isn't an actual reason.

Just saying "public schools are bad therefore charter schools are automatically better" isn't an actual argument in favor of them. There has to be some reason to think that system would work better and you're avoiding giving one.

 

[Serious]

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.

kind of sums up my first two years of hs....not all the kids, but a good percentage of kids were came from school districts because they were kicked out..

 

[Serious]

You have to admit, govt. is doing a piss poor job with education...

yeah because we can't even nationalize the curriculum so that billy from Mississippi isn't stuck learning about creationism in 10th grade, while his counterpart james in California is just now being introduced to evolution..

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

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.

I dont think charter schools are the way to do that

What good is a system in which 3% of the kids get a good education at the expense of the other 97%

Why not just fix 100% of the public schools?

 

[theworldismine13]

It'd be screwing over the kids who are still in public schools though. And it's unlikely that we'd ever completely close down the "old public school" system, a more likely scenario is simply a larger percentage of students going to charter schools.

no it wouldnt, charter schools do not stop public schools from implementing any changes

My point is that

1. Not all public schools are bad, even in Detroit
2. You can have choice in public schools


And you're still failing to give any substantial reason at all as to why charter schools would be better. All you've said so far is "choice", which you can have in public schools, and "innovation" which isn't an actual reason.

Just saying "public schools are bad therefore charter schools are automatically better" isn't an actual argument in favor of them. There has to be some reason to think that system would work better and you're avoiding giving one.

i never said charter schools are automatically better, what i said is that charter school allow innovation and creativity and freedom from the public school bureaucracy, the statistics show that for black children especially charter schools perform better

what you are doing is putting absolute statements in my mouth and then arguing about something i never said

i never said all school public schools in detroit are bad, what i did say is that detroit has one of the worst public school systems in the country and its a prime candidate for complete shut down like the new orleans public school system

i never said you cant have school choice in public schools what i said is that school choice should include charters and vouchers for private school a

the statistics show that charter school are better, its not just what im saying

 

[theworldismine13]

yeah because we can't even nationalize the curriculum so that billy from Mississippi isn't stuck learning about creationism in 10th grade, while his counterpart james in California is just now being introduced to evolution..

black people should not be for a national system, the fundamental reason for supporting charters and vouchers is that it will allow black people to open up our own school with our own curriculum

 

[DEAD7]

yeah because we can't even nationalize the curriculum so that billy from Mississippi isn't stuck learning about creationism in 10th grade, while his counterpart james in California is just now being introduced to evolution..

Education in this country is a mess.