Charter Schools: another gift to the 1%

I want to close one school and open another. What is it that you're whining about, then, if you understand that the total cost for two schools will still be the total cost for two schools? Your rant makes no sense at all.

It does not fix the problem. It just gives more money to the shit school and deprives the charter students of their "unfair" advantage.

Wait, what? Where do you get that idea? I presented (with evidence) the proposal that Charters do not do a superior job. They are the inferior school, wasting money. That money should be use instead for funding a better, proven type of school. I've consistently said that throughout this thread, starting in the first post. You, on the other hand, have been all over the map, suggesting that charters are privately funded, that they aren't, that they save you tax money, that they don't, that I want to reach in to your pocket (I don't). But you've never once actually addressed the topic.

Based on your own, highly subjective criterea that assumes excluding and/or removing poor performers is necessarily a bad thing. It could just as easily be argued that what's needed is more specialized/tiered schools, to cater to the special ed and votech-oriented students on their own (and segregate the discipline problems), rather than trying to shoehorn them in with those on a viable academic path for secondary education.

Again, highly subjective. There is a reason those students left the conventional public schools, and it is a demand that your "solution" fails utterly to address.

Gonna need to see a link for all that. No "interpretation" or "this clearly means." You'll find you were at best leaping to the wrong conclusion.

Given that the only things you ever post about are things that you perceive - usually wrongly - will take money out of Uncle Albert's pocket, this is almost as funny as Lanz the Gubmint Contractor prepping for the MIB to confiscate his guns.

Almost. Too bad. This is not one of those things where you get a trophy for showing up.

Not even true in this thread.

Feel free to stay out of it if you can't be bothered to fucking pay attention.

So you're arguing for the care and feeding of somebody else's tax dollars? How very collectivist of you.

*sigh*

Everyone pays property taxes, be it directly or indirectly, so everyone has skin in the education game. Gul's douchebaggery aside, I never claimed or believed it would be newly-collected money, but that it would be throwing more money at a failing school that students were abandoning for a reason.

Are you caught up now, or will your next post be another dumb little troll swipe like that?

I'm open to more ideas Albert. I already said I liked some of lanzman's ideas. That's not the point. I'm talking about charter schools. I believe they do more harm than help. I've presented some evidence, native suggested a no cost solution. If you want to do more and spend more, then let's talk, but stop playing games regarding what I've said,it makes you look stupid. Do you want to look stupid?

Possibly even the ones you just fucking quoted?

Because they are not one-size-fits-all warehouses where the same faculty must deal with every caliber of student, from the gifted academics, to the short bus crowd, to the hopeless fucking delinquent thugs and everything in between? The same staff tasked with keeping smart kids challenged while making up for the failures of negligent parents?

What you suggest is not better, it just services your warped notions of "fairness" by preventing charter schools from stacking the deck for test scores and graduation rates because it's somehow better to let the under-performing students drag down their classmates.

Fair has nothing to do with it Albert. Charters do contour perform the regular schools by any metric when you standardize populations. But guess what. They get the averaged per pupil cost for their budget, even though they only teach the least expensive to educate students. It's a rip-off. You are typical of somebody who has heard and accepted the propaganda but hasn't bothered drilling in to the data.

So your solution is an inverse proportion between the difficulty associated with teaching a student, and the amount of money the school receives for him?

What sort of behavior do you suppose that might encourage? As if you care. Your interest is in denying those evil rich people the ability to secure special treatment for their kids. Because it's wrong for someone to receive service commensurate to the amount they pay. You know how you eliminate the problem of education money spent in a way you disagree with? Privatize education. Then you can decide exactly how much of your money goes to what institution. You could even pay tuition for other peoples' kids, if you're feeling charitable.

Ratings systems don't mean shit the schools pretty much all suck.

Most NYC High School Grads Need Remedial Help

Then again, it merely shows how disgusting New Yorkers and their broodlings as the sidewalk spitters that they are.

Autocorrect or Tapatalk?

It's called separating the wheat from the chaff. We were talking about that up here just the other day with Matthew and Luke.

What you want is the typical leftist approach. Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money. You can't fix losers with money.

Oh, for crying out loud. Take your meds, put your teeth in the jar on the nightstand, put the fucking computer down, and go to sleep.

Hi, VisionRazor.

Pssst! Hey granny! You're still trying to hard to get my attention.

I'm not VisionRazor. I'm me. Don't you recognize me? What do I have to do to convince you? Perform a miracle?

Post #77.

You're still not very good at this.

"Mallory, education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet."

I'm too tired/lazy to go through and respond individually, so a couple points.

On a macro level gul is correct that schools don't make kids, kids make schools. About 90% of a kid's performance comes down to demographic differences. A middle class kid living in a two parent household, both with college degrees is going to perform about the same wherever you put her. Good schools in general just have more such students and bad schools less.

However that is at a macro level. On an individual level things can shift. Peer expectations, teacher quality, facility quality, curriculum can have an effect on students, even if it isn't much or universal. And every parent wants to give their kid the biggest advantage. Telling someone "Hey, sorry, but you live on the wrong side of the Assignment Area boundary, you're kid is going to go to a school where 43% won't graduate, she'll likely be picked on for trying hard, teacher turnover is about 20% a year, the facilities suck, the course options are limited, b/c when it average it out over thousands, it really doesn't make more than a couple percentage points on test scores" is kind of a hard sell. Which is why the push for charters, vouchers, and other alternatives.

Now, Packard, correct me if I'm wrong. It's been a few years. When it comes to vouchers I like the German method, only give 90%. For the reason gul mentions it's usually the cheaper students that go to alternatives leaving the more expensive students in the district. Offset that by only giving a partial voucher. In Germany the rest is made up for by the various churches, as most private schools are nominally parochial.

I'd be up for trying something like that with charters. Have the remainder made up for with grants or something, or even means test and charge tuition.


Choice is good. While the assigned school in our area is 'poor' the alternative school is pretty kick ass. I wouldn't mind having more choices.