Skip to main content

View Diary: Parents and Educators Pack Hearing to Oppose Turnaround of Chicago School (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  other problems too (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aerie star, ManhattanMan

    Chicago has a lot of choice. It has selective enrollment schools for the academically gifted, it has magnet schools for those with special interests, and yes charter schools some of which have themes and some of which don't.

    Then there are the general neighborhood schools. Some of which are good schools without fighting or constant disruption; some of which aren't. Parents know which kind they have. It turns out those schools, with those problems, less than half the students who could attend them, do attend them. The others go to these alternatives.

    Charter schools may not be a be all end all solution (I don't think they are) and it is not fair to compare the results of the generals and the charters. But the real virtue of the charters is twofold. 1 is that they can set expectations for behavior from the students. 2 is that the parent chose the school for the child. So you wind up with a school with more academically oriented parents and an environment where rules can be set for behavior. This means that parents are in essence picking peers for their child, peers that are decently behaved and academically motivated if not gifted.

    •  To complete the chain of reasoning... (5+ / 0-)
      So you wind up with a school with more academically oriented parents and an environment where rules can be set for behavior. This means that parents are in essence picking peers for their child, peers that are decently behaved and academically motivated if not gifted.
      ...leaving behind the students that do not meet any of those standards, causing further deterioration of the traditional school system.

      Some "virtue". It's a "virtue" for individuals, and a "sin" for society.

      •  Amen, DB (3+ / 0-)

        One of Manhattan Man's issues — and I wish he'd stop flogging it in every single diary about charter schools — is his inability to step back from the virtue for his child and look at the situation more globally. I am glad his child has a great charter school to attend, but he extrapolates a lot of things from his singularly experience that simply aren't true for the entire education system. As a citizen and taxpayer with no children, I don't have his emotional baggage. I want the best for every kid. And I want teachers, who are the heroes in this, to stop being attacked.

        Take the "Can't(or)" out of Congress. Support E. Wayne Powell in Va-07. http://www.ewaynepowell.com/

        by anastasia p on Thu Feb 09, 2012 at 02:19:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  tragedy of the commons (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ManhattanMan

        It's true and it's a tragedy of the commons problem. But if educational assets need to be rationed, I'd rather ration them toward those with an interest (not ability) in being educated. Or at least with an interest in not negatively affecting other student's possibilities.

        The question I have is why can't the law be changed so that students can lose the right to a FAPE (free appropriate public education) for a term or permanently for bad behavior? Or why can't special schools be set up for the small numbers of unmotivated students, so they are at least not hurting the other ones?

        •  When I went to public school, a student (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cermakRd

          could definitely be suspended and eventually expelled, after a number of suspensions, for unacceptable behavior including smart ass remarks to a teacher. I know someone who experienced that chain of events.

          The myth that public schools CAN'T expel students is an absurdity, even if it is policy at this time.

      •  This is the old self-selection myth. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Wood

        Even CREDO doesn't agree with it.

        CREDO is the author of the often cited  study on Charter schools.

        But even if it's true, you are asking me to basically sacrifice my daughter to a bad traditional school -- because it will somehow slow that school's "further deterioration".

        Rich kids in the suburbs don't have to sacrifice. Why should my daughter have to?

        Do you want "more academically oriented parents" and their "decently behaved" kids? Go to the leafy suburbs to where they've fled and drag them back. If the 1% (actually the 20%) will sacrifice their kids to the NYC Dept. Of Education, I'll consider sacrificing mine.

        •  Actually, this is not my assertion. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linda Wood

          It is the comment of cermakRd.

          My addition simply furthered his assertion to its logical conclusion. Take your argument up with him, if you wish.

          But even if it's true, you are asking me to basically sacrifice my daughter to a bad traditional school -- because it will somehow slow that school's "further deterioration".
          Yet again, wrong. Feel free to devoting your energies to improving your local school. Even a single family can, and has, made a difference in a school district, and my (bottom end of middle class) family has proved that.

          My contentions tend to point out how charter schools and other alternatives to traditional public schools have an overall effect of damaging the concept of free, quality, public education for all in this country. Your arguments all center on how an individual child should be entitled to a quality education, even at the expense of others.

          My solution is to strengthen traditional public schools, for the benefit of all.

          Your solution is to throw traditional public schools under the bus, along with all the students in them who don't enjoy the luxury of concerned, capable parents, as long as your kid doesn't suffer.

          Your solution is shortsighted and selfish.

          If you were to home-school your child, I would have no objections at all, because that would not provide resources to those who want to take over public education. But you openly advocate for policies that, nation-wide, have been largely co-opted by forces that simply want to break open the piggy bank of dollars that traditional education represents.

          Don't expect any sympathy from me.

          •  But you wrote... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Linda Wood
            ...leaving behind the students that do not meet any of those standards, causing further deterioration of the traditional school system.

            Some "virtue". It's a "virtue" for individuals, and a "sin" for society.

            I took that to mean that you believe that removing well-prepared kids "deteriorates" the traditional school system. Maybe it does. But aren't you asking a lot of those kids, if you tell them that they must return to the Bad School so it won't become a Worse School?

            You write:

            "Your arguments all center on how an individual child should be entitled to a quality education, even at the expense of others."

            And here we get to The Real Issue. Reverse your statement. You want certain individual children to have lower-quality educations because (you believe) it will help other children, or "society".

            That's OK. All members of a community should be prepared to sacrifice something for the greater good. I'm prepared to do my bit! But you are not asking for all members to sacrifice. The sacrifice is borne only by those who are not rich enough to afford suburban real estate or private tuition.

            The Bush Twins and Obama girls are not asked to sacrifice. There is no sacrifice Scarsdale or in the wealthy areas of NJ and CT. Only inner-city parents must make this sacrifice. Only inner-city parents are expected to stay in bad schools because they are needed to slow the "deterioration"

            It's not fair!

            So, like I said. When the Romney family enrolls their kids in my local NYC School, I'm there. But until then, I gotta look out for my daughter. Somebody has to look after her and I damn sure can't trust the NEA to do it...

            •  Still carrying on an argument with the wrong guy. (0+ / 0-)
              It is the comment of cermakRd.

              My addition simply furthered his assertion to its logical conclusion. Take your argument up with him, if you wish.

              As for your fresh misreadings...
              You write:

              "Your arguments all center on how an individual child should be entitled to a quality education, even at the expense of others."

              And here we get to The Real Issue. Reverse your statement. You want certain individual children to have lower-quality educations because (you believe) it will help other children, or "society".

              You seem to be mistaking my characterization of your position as my actual position.

              I suggest you re-read the things you comment on, before you comment. You have a habit of misinterpreting, at best.

              If I actually thought that was the case, I would be arguing that charters and other alternative education solutions actually consistently provided a better education than traditional public schools. Does that seem to be what I argue?

              Of course not. Your own comments acknowledge that the best study shows only 17% of charters providing a "better" education, and 37% of charters providing a "worse" education.

              And it's not your personal situation I care about, although I'm sure you do. It's that you constantly drum for support for everyone else to desert regular schools for charters - making it a larger issue than you and your daughter. You're certainly entitled to espouse your beliefs - but don't be surprised when others disagree.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site