I mean, overall, charter schools are like public schools. Some are bad, some are good, and some are just average. The problem is that they divert money away from fixing public schools.
It was written by a guy who works for a libertarian thinktank funded by the Koch brothers.
Remember, her goal for education is to "enhance God's Kingdom."
Look into that as you will...
Perhaps they can roll that into guidance counselor treatment regiments. They can electroshock all of the gays in learning institutions as soon as they're identified by their teachers or outed by their peers.And is like Pence who believes in shock therapy to turn gay people straight which is just disgusting.
Competency isn't a pre-requisite for Donald's cabinet. All that matters is loyalty and the size of their bank accounts.This is why you don't hire incompetent people. Anyone worth their salt in education knows the distinction because we are in growth based assessment framework now. Educators need to know their shit.
we're selling out poor families by pulling out money from public schools to give to wealth managemeny systems for the 1%So?
There are hard verifiable statistics in that article that are sourced from non-partisan sources.
Whatever his political bias, the numbers show objective improvement.
Even if there was no objective evidence of improvement and the outcomes were only equivalent, I'd look at the fact that parents seem to highly prefer charter schools and think that maybe they should be available. We are supposed to live in a democracy after all.
Or we could sell out poor families for the benefit of the teachers unions because the unions are big donors and the poor families aren't.
we're selling out poor families by pulling out money from public schools to give to wealth managemeny systems for the 1%
Do we really got to put up with this for 4 years? This is fucking terrible.
If the results are at worst equivalent and the parents who choose to send their kids to these charters prefer them, who exactly is getting sold out here?
Do we really got to put up with this for 4 years? This is fucking terrible.
I mean, overall, charter schools are like public schools. Some are bad, some are good, and some are just average. The problem is that they divert money away from fixing public schools.
They make a reasonably good argument that the charter system is performing better than the district schools.There are hard verifiable statistics in that article that are sourced from non-partisan sources.
Whatever his political bias, the numbers show objective improvement.
So?
There are hard verifiable statistics in that article that are sourced from non-partisan sources.
Whatever his political bias, the numbers show objective improvement.
Even if there was no objective evidence of improvement and the outcomes were only equivalent, I'd look at the fact that parents seem to highly prefer charter schools and think that maybe they should be available. We are supposed to live in a democracy after all.
Or we could sell out poor families for the benefit of the teachers unions because the unions are big donors and the poor families aren't.
Don't worry. She'll likely privatize schools so much that only the whites get the advancement to God's kingdom.
I'm sure light may be white in her plan. Or maybe white paved with green, I dunno...
we're selling out poor families by pulling out money from public schools to give to wealth managemeny systems for the 1%
Dominion Theology. It's going to be the Theocratic States of America in the future.
I think more likely it would help the underperformers, while boring the shit out of the gifted students.
I mean, overall, charter schools are like public schools. Some are bad, some are good, and some are just average. The problem is that they divert money away from fixing public schools.
Aren't charter schools essentially schools for rich kids? Aren't the performance of these schools related to a selection bias, where if you pick out the kids that are better off, and measure their progress, then of course they will be better off?
#Pay4Play
She doesn't have the experience needed for this position and bought her way there. Sander's question was spot on.
There's a ton of research behind it. My wife and I are both educators, her for elementary me at the university level. We've both seen it work. The trick is that the best way to challenge someone is to have them teach. Have somebody ask a question of them where they have to synthesize new knowledge to answer.I'm not saying there would be 0 growth. I just think the growth would be higher if the class was tailored just for them. On an individual level, how could it not be? If the weaker students are not directly contributing to the growth of the stronger students, then they are at best neutral, and at worse hampering the progress of the stronger students.
So yes, everyone will improve. No dispute. But imagine you take the sum of growth of all students in the classroom. I'm not convinced that doing a purely mi mixed group would yield a higher sum than doing purely separate groups.
On the other hand, you could even mix it up, like switch classrooms around mid-day. Like first half of the day is all mixed, second half of the day some kids go to the gifted classes, others go to the remedial classes.
You already see this kind of thing in high school. AP courses. What if there were no AP courses, but you just tried to teach the material while all the weaker kids were in the same class? It wouldn't make much sense right?
"I'm ignorant and proud."Big deal. I don't either.
America had a good run.
Honest answer: no, that's obviously illegal. Most places use lotteries, and the parents who lose the lotteries often despair at being trapped for another year in an awful district school.
An accusation that is unprovable but which can happen is that they'll "strongly encourage" bad students to consider "a better fit" before the date on which students are counted or tested. So, life is supposedly made more difficult for the student (suspensions, detentions, leaning on a student in class) to get them to voluntarily pull out so one doesn't break the law but gets the superior result.
PREACH 🙌🏽I love that everyone has an opinion on how schools and classrooms should work. Like they have any fucking idea what they are talking about.
Can you imagine a parent walking into an operating room or hell even a mechanics garage and trying to tell them how they think the best way to start the surgery or that they feel wheels are just optional.
The people with the loudest criticisms of teachers have always never taught a day in their life.
If there was actually a non-zero risk of failing a grade, kids would try their damndest to pass. I knew a lot of kids who got held back when i was a kid. But I can assure you one thing, it *never* happened more than once, because they learned their lesson.
There's a ton of research behind it. My wife and I are both educators, her for elementary me at the university level. We've both seen it work. The trick is that the best way to challenge someone is to have them teach. Have somebody ask a question of them where they have to synthesize new knowledge to answer.
Aren't charter schools essentially schools for rich kids? Aren't the performance of these schools related to a selection bias, where if you pick out the kids that are better off, and measure their progress, then of course they will be better off?
The kids in public school. In the district I taught in the money for kids was given out in October. If that kid got kicked out of school we had to take them at my traditional public school but the money doesn't follow them so after October our school would have extra students but no additional funding to support them.
Sorry, but your anecdote doesn't reflect reality. Getting held back once drastically increased overall drop out rates, and a substantial percentage were held back more than once. All the people that were spanked in school "learned their lesson" too and never acted up again, right? Those things weren't changed because the whole world suddenly got soft. Those things were changed because we learned they didn't actually work.
Uhh, good? Send them back to 3rd grade if they're at a 3rd grade level. That's literally what "grade level" means.
Then why are we declining globally, if the methods we use now are supposedly better?
Uhh, good? Send them back to 3rd grade if they're at a 3rd grade level. That's literally what "grade level" means.
Thanks for this. I guess my only concern then is the injection of religion into the public education sphere. Who created everything? If god is a correct answer, the student may still score high which says that is the answer, but they are certainly getting a worse education.
Sorry, but your anecdote doesn't reflect reality. Getting held back once drastically increased overall drop out rates, and a substantial percentage were held back more than once. All the people that were spanked in school "learned their lesson" too and never acted up again, right? Those things weren't changed because the whole world suddenly got soft. Those things were changed because we learned they didn't actually work.
There's a ton of research behind it. My wife and I are both educators, her for elementary me at the university level. We've both seen it work. The trick is that the best way to challenge someone is to have them teach. Have somebody ask a question of them where they have to synthesize new knowledge to answer.
Is that what they do in countries like Russia, China, and Japan that are destroying us in science and math?
That's a serious question btw, I don't know.
Why can't we just do what they do?
1) That's a really bad way to have your classes. Older kids like that are not going to do well in that environment and it's going to be disruptive to everyone
No charter schools are for poor kids. Rich kids go to private schools already anyway.
Shitty district budgetary processes are no excuse for preventing people from being able to choose how to educate their children IMO.
DeVos is not my ideal choice because she has ideological and religious motivations that I don't agree with as a fairly non ideological atheist, but school choice seems to be objectively good to me. If implementing it fucks up some administrative procedures or leads to some bad side effect we can cross that bridge when we get to it, but we can never make any progress if Democrats refuse to even attempt any change that does not directly enrich the teacher's unions.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...amily-amway-michigan-politics-religion-214631I'm friends with several dozen teachers here in Michigan. Most have masters degrees. Every single one of them is against charter schools and even more so against Devos. Now, I'm not an educator at all, but there has to be a reason they are so united against it? What's the cause of this big discrepancy? Because what you write sure seems reasonable.
Democrats by and large support charter schools. The problem is charter schools and public schools are not held to the same rules and regulations. Charters can be selective in who they let in and public schools have to take everyone. If charters had the same rules and regulations as traditional public schools I would be more on board. I don't dislike charter schools as a whole, but i think some of the procedures and policies they implement are unfair to traditional schools.No charter schools are for poor kids. Rich kids go to private schools already anyway.
Shitty district budgetary processes are no excuse for preventing people from being able to choose how to educate their children IMO.
DeVos is not my ideal choice because she has ideological and religious motivations that I don't agree with as a fairly non ideological atheist, but school choice seems to be objectively good to me. If implementing it fucks up some administrative procedures or leads to some bad side effect we can cross that bridge when we get to it, but we can never make any progress if Democrats refuse to even attempt any change that does not directly enrich the teacher's unions.
I'm friends with several dozen teachers here in Michigan. Most have masters degrees. Every single one of them is against charter schools and even more so against Devos. Now, I'm not an educator at all, but there has to be a reason they are so united against it? What's the cause of this big discrepancy? Because what you write sure seems reasonable.
If they did then then how would their rich friends that run the charter networks make money?How about instead of giving people a choice (that will only continue to deflect resources away from the public schools) we just fix the system that the majority of Americans are already using. You don't build a new road because one has potholes or to give people the choice of what road to go down. You can't present an argument as "for the people" when it severely undermines those already suffering from a lack of education and poor school districts. Investing in charter schools provides no benefit to anyone except for those running them. Just because some are successful also doesn't negate the fact that over a hundred have closed in Florida in the past decade.
As for religion I know what you're trying to say, and I respect the ideology and hope that it can give to those, especially young people. However that belongs to the community and to their family to bring them up in an environment where you are encouraged to learn more about it. Not the school system.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...amily-amway-michigan-politics-religion-214631
Trying to be fair to them:
1. There are fixed costs in school districts. If there weren't, I would be viciously vocal against anyone who questioned school choice. EVEN IF half the students went to voucher or charter schools and you get let go because the money follows children, just...get hired at the other school. Like, New Orleans and DC had huge changes. The teachers didn't just move out. They switched schools.
Buildings, however, are fixed and, depending on circumstance, owned by the district or the city. They're paying for those whether they are filled or not.
You COULD sell them to the new schools, make your money back, and accept that you educate fewer students. But once you sell them, especially if they're good buildings or in good locations, you're not going to get them back. So, they are understandably hesitant.
My school in Milwaukee was in The Wall Street Journal and The Economist for us trying to do this exact thing and the mayor dicking us over.
2. Changing AWAY from the district as the main deliverer of public education to district/charter/voucher/online/home is a giant change, just as giant as the invention and formalization of districts and grade levels were when they came along.
People are afraid of change and uncertainty, and often rightly so. The change could go disastrously. Stuff like No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top give them no confidence.
Teachers are burned out by change, because they, probably more than private employees or other public employees, have to deal with shifting goals FAR more often than anyone else. "This percent proficiency, this much growth, a parent's pissed about remediation, oops, we're not focused on reading, we need to focus on math, new state test, new MAP test," and so on. I feel bad for them.
3. Politics, partisanship, union membership, or entitlement (like they are OWED a certain amount of kids in their building). No offense, boo hoo to them.
4. They feel like they are unfairly competing with them, and it enrages them. They often have false information about what they are allowed to do or how accountable they really are. (Again, you can't cream the best kids and leave the rest, you have to take disabled kids that you're capable of educating, and so on.)
Isn't she a billionaire?
No charter schools are for poor kids. Rich kids go to private schools already anyway.
Shitty district budgetary processes are no excuse for preventing people from being able to choose how to educate their children IMO.
DeVos is not my ideal choice because she has ideological and religious motivations that I don't agree with as a fairly non ideological atheist, but school choice seems to be objectively good to me. If implementing it fucks up some administrative procedures or leads to some bad side effect we can cross that bridge when we get to it, but we can never make any progress if Democrats refuse to even attempt any change that does not directly enrich the teacher's unions.
#4 is highly variable. One of my friends is a principal at a charter and they have a meeting with parents and the student about that student's background. If the student is SPED and want to transfer after the beginning of the school year she rejects them. This is part of the problem I have with charters is you could NEVER do that at a traditional public school. I just wish charters and traditional schools had all of the same requirements.
How about instead of giving people a choice (that will only continue to deflect resources away from the public schools) we just fix the system that the majority of Americans are already using. You don't build a new road because one has potholes or to give people the choice of what road to go down. You can't present an argument as "for the people" when it severely undermines those already suffering from a lack of education and poor school districts. Investing in charter schools provides no benefit to anyone except for those running them. Just because some are successful also doesn't negate the fact that over a hundred have closed in Florida in the past decade.
As for religion I know what you're trying to say, and I respect the ideology and hope that it can give to those, especially young people. However that belongs to the community and to their family to bring them up in an environment where you are encouraged to learn more about it. Not the school system.