actualtext t1_j9huc6h wrote
I'd be in support for more charter schools if they had to abide by the exact same union standards and rules that public schools have to abide by.
For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students, etc. Otherwise you basically end up in a situation where teachers in charter schools get paid less with worst benefits and charter schools get to reject students that they deem will bring the school down academically. It creates a completely unfair situation for public schools that will simply spiral down.
I don't quite understand why this is deemed acceptable use of tax dollars. Why can't the state look at the issues with public schools and address them appropriately?
Neoliberalism2024 t1_j9hvyz5 wrote
Charter schools absolutely should be able to reject students, that’s the whole point.
Disruptive student ruin education for everyone else.
Richer people move to richer suburbs to go to public schools where most parents are engaged parents and therefore the kids are well behaved. They then get a quality education.
Poorer kids don’t have this choice. They go to school surrounded by violent and disruptive students that make it impossible for them learn (I know this first hand from my childhood).
Charter schools provide a way for kids who actually want to learn to be in an environment where they can learn.
Public schools in nyc have been shit fot 40-50 years, and getting worse, despite spending more money than anywhere else in the USA. At this point it’s irrational to think they’ll get any better.
Poor kids who want to learn deserve an opportunity to learn. They shouldn’t be pawns of rich white people who whine “won’t someone think of the disruptive and violent students”. Send them to your rich schools in the suburbs if you care about them so much.
actualtext t1_j9hzxja wrote
You're basically arguing we should keep all disruptive and violent students in public school then. Of course that creates a race to the bottom for public schools. It's an untenable situation for them. Now public schools have less funds and an even higher concentration of undesired students. The results will never get better.
I'm speaking as someone who was a product of the city public school system. I, and many others, came out just fine and were able to take advantage of what few resources were available in my public school.
If the issue are disruptive students then those students should be dealt with a taken out of the regular student population to be placed in specialized classes. That can all exist within the same public school system.
Either completely eliminate public schools and force charters to accept all students they are zoned in or don't have charters at all. This two school system is bullshit and a waste of tax payer money.
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j9jwx50 wrote
You're contradicting what you and everyone else really want, which is taking the disruptive students out of class by disparaging charter schools for doing exactly that. Public schools are actively dismantling traditional punitive measures, in favor of restorative justice techniques. Those technique are exascerbating disruptive behavior in the classroom. Parents merely want an environment where kids can learn, which is mpre common in a charter school. Is that too much to ask for?
johnniewelker t1_j9i91v1 wrote
When did you graduate and from where? The last 10 years have been bunkers. No responsible parent want their child in a title 1 school… it’s tantamount to child abuse at this point
[deleted] t1_j9jqtmy wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9jtot7 wrote
The people causing the problems in public schools are disruptive students that have no consequences, comrade. It's not some unsolvable mystery. The union teachers will all day the same thing.
[deleted] t1_j9ju0n7 wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9jumnc wrote
It's not really subtle and neither was your original comment.
KaiDaiz t1_j9i8lis wrote
> For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students, etc.
What makes you think this isn't what parents want. Kids are kicked out of charter for "behavior issues" which is basically code for not keeping up with the curve and holding the class back be it in academic performance, behavior issues, disruptions, whatever. Good amount of parents want their kids track. Its why screened public schools are more desirable vs local unscreened schools. Some charters employ a more extreme version of tracking but its not like it was never unseen in public school G&T, honors and other tracking programs. If your grades don't keep up, you not guarantee a spot in next years G&T, honors, etc class. No different what's practice in some charters, can't keep up, you get cut.
Again charter schools wouldn't be necessary if NYC DOE didn't wage war on merit & tracking the first place especially at black and brown neighborhoods. Ever wonder why some charters have some of the best performing black and brown students in the city outside of screened public schools that are not in their neighborhoods? ITs bc the NYC DOE continues to failed these students, left them with poor local choices and left these promising students untracked. The current public curriculum is subpar and watered down with screened schools never expanded despite the demand. Which drives parents to seek alternatives. Again map charter school locations, more often its located in the very same hoods as the terrible local public schools but seen by parents as a better alternative vs what they got.
koreamax t1_j9ig8ok wrote
Charter School teachers don't need to be certified.
plump_helmet_addict t1_j9tn6d4 wrote
I'm sure those well-certified NYC DOE administrators have been living up to their certifications lmao
If the kids are doing well, the parents are happy, and the school is functioning, then this is just massive cope.
koreamax t1_j9uhazc wrote
Yes, exactly. I agree. Certification is great, but it's pretty difficult to float your way through the process, and yo usually end up at a school really far from where you live. My wife was a charter school teacher with a masters in child advocacy, but no certification. She loves teaching but getting certified at this point would essentially require her to do her undergrad again.
spicytoastaficionado t1_j9jufol wrote
>For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students
LOL this is one of the biggest benefits of charter schools-- for teachers, students, and parents alike.
Ask any parent who has a child @ a charter school whether or not they support the school's ability to reject disruptive students, and I guarantee you'd get a resounding "YES".
People don't like poking the elephant in the room since it is considered gauche to shit on kids, but one of the biggest reasons why NYC schools are the way they are is because a lot of students don't take education seriously and act like complete assholes.
[deleted] t1_j9mwnvo wrote
[deleted]
spicytoastaficionado t1_j9ncsrt wrote
If it's that bad already, an influx of disruptive asshole kids would make it that much worse for them!
Longjumping_Vast_797 t1_j9jvrea wrote
Every school should have a streamline protocol to reject violent or disruptive students. They are denying other responsible and respectful students' right to an education. Let them reap what they sow.
actualtext t1_j9kvwa1 wrote
Why not let that happen in the public school system? Why is a separate school system needed?
KaiDaiz t1_j9kx1wq wrote
Why do we have specialized schools for high achieving, special needs schools, etc...its bc they have a special need and environment needed to tailor to their needs. See how these students are segregated by ability? the basis of tracking
Disruptive students need to be segregated as well. they need to be socialized before we can attempt to teach them anything meaningful
actualtext t1_j9kxup1 wrote
Specialized schools are still public schools. Can't speak for special need schools because I'm not sure what those are. But I imagine they fall under the same umbrella and same rules as all public schools. Charter schools do not abide by the same rules.
Separating students isn't the issue. Using tax dollars to fund a separate school system that doesn't play by the same rules is the problem.
KaiDaiz t1_j9kziov wrote
charters are still public schools difference they practice tracking more openly vs the unscreened public which parents want that the NYC DOE wage war on
IRequirePants t1_j9idqmd wrote
> the exact same union standards
No. Rubber rooms are not useful.
IsayNigel t1_j9lveyn wrote
Rubber rooms have been a non issue for years you really need to get another talking point. Schools can barely find staff as it is, how do you think it’s going to work with no unions?
IRequirePants t1_j9lzby4 wrote
> Rubber rooms have been a non issue for years you really need to get another talking point.
Because deBlasio and Adams started reassigning them to teaching roles:
> Schools can barely find staff as it is, how do you think it’s going to work with no unions?
Huh? Seems to be working fine in charter schools.
[deleted] t1_j9mwu5i wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j9mzy9w wrote
First off, it 100% depends on the specific charter school. It is not a monolith. And I can just easily point to the public school failures in NYC. At least if a student is learning a test, they are learning.
For many students, the alternative is a public school where they will learn nothing at all.
[deleted] t1_j9n0k6m wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j9n1m9e wrote
> Thats the hottest worst take I have ever see
Because you have no concept of what the alternative is.
> Theres a huge movement going on in elite subrubab districts (of which I am part) to do LESS testing.
That movement is actually the dumbest things in education. For example, the UC system did a study on the SAT. They found it gave underrepresented students more opportunities and were a better indicator for college GPA than high school GPA.
No need to address the rest of your comment. Too many standardized tests is obviously bad, but having a core group of standardized tests (APs, SATs, Regents), is important for measuring student aptitude. Again, I point to this UC report.
Even if all they are learning is the test, they are learning something. The alternative is learning nothing at all for many of these kids.
[deleted] t1_j9n1xgd wrote
[deleted]
IRequirePants t1_j9n2c58 wrote
> The SAT didn’t help them, they were born with wealth and other advantages.
So you understand the issue. The SAT didn't help them, because they already have other advantages. Not every student is like that, especially in the NYC public school system.
The UC report shows SAT scores allowed more underrepresented groups of more diverse backgrounds into the system. And did so better than something more subjective, like high school GPA.
There is also this focus on the Ivies or other top schools that suburban districts have. For kids in urban charter schools, that is not the choice nor the focus.
IsayNigel t1_j9n5icd wrote
Really? The turnover rate in charters is higher than that of the DOE, their pay is worse, and so are their benefits. Where are you getting this information from?
ripstep1 t1_j9japcl wrote
Why should they have to accept shitty kids? The entire point of those schools is to escape low income rugrats.
[deleted] t1_j9jqyl6 wrote
[deleted]
ripstep1 t1_j9kqbx9 wrote
It’s not though. Yours is the problem. Learned helplessness.
[deleted] t1_j9krfis wrote
[deleted]
ripstep1 t1_j9kv8mp wrote
I am not running away. I pay my taxes. That is the exact maximum I need to do.
[deleted] t1_j9kwtto wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9l7ai0 wrote
The minority group with the highest poverty rate in the city also has the highest educational attainment and educational performance. You believe poverty is the root of the problem and its just not. You have a mountain of contradictory evidence in front of you that everyone else can see and you wonder why people ignore you.
[deleted] t1_j9l7hrw wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9lon4q wrote
I'm not talking about rich people or private schools. Would you like to respond to the point that Asians in New York have the highest poverty rate and also the highest educational attainment?
[deleted] t1_j9lpgbh wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9oquv6 wrote
That's the non-answer I was expecting.
YaksInSlax t1_j9orgai wrote
Proud of you. Now are you going to join us back in the discussion circle, or will you continue wanking in the corner?
KaiDaiz t1_j9ktcr2 wrote
Would argue most kids served by charters belong to poor families in this city. Map the schools, most are in disadvantage communities and for them its either the continuously failing local unscreened public or take their chance with local charter.
ripstep1 t1_j9kv4e1 wrote
Doesn’t matter either way. Parents should have options of where to send their kids.
mission17 t1_j9lmctx wrote
> escape low income rugrats.
Glad we’re finally saying the quiet part out loud.
ripstep1 t1_j9lmucl wrote
Better than the party line which is “we should deliberately fuck over my kid so I can prop up someone else”
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9jtcb4 wrote
Leaving disruptive students in the classroom ruins the education of everyone in the room including the disruptive student. Disruptive or violent kids need much more direct interventions for behavioral problems, and the other kids need a safe learning environment.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments