Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The teachers unions and education unions have spent tons of money on skewing research to undermine charter schools which are a big threat to their fat bloated and incompetent beaurocracy.
BS. When you don't have to take ALL students including special ed and can kick out under performing or misbehaving kids, you will likely do better. I'm not sure what study you are looking at, but even with those advantages, charters have not done much better.
Many parents including me are against charters because they are basically private schools. They take public money but won't open up their books to the public and won't abide by public rules. It's not a union thing and your statement is just a cop out in order to avoid the truth. I'm no fan of Hilary, but I'm glad she feels accountable to public education and is aware of the concern to ruin it. You really need some critical thinking skills.
You can't paint the entire nation's charter schools with the same broad brush as used for the Charter Schools in your areas. Each State has different qualifications and requirements for Charter Schools and each Charter School has it's own focus and mission. If those schools are under performing, then the taxpayers in the area need to rectify the situation by removing the school's charter and awarding it to another entity with plans for a better implemented school!
How will you know? Charters rarely open their books. Even if they did, why do they get to avoid the laws that public schools have to contend with?
I find the concept of Charter school appalling. Essentially a person's future is decided entirely by.... LOTTERY!?
Yes, it's good if the child got "drawn", but what about those who lose the lottery? They are basically SOL if the parent can't afford alternatives. It's a half-donkey concept that helps a small portion and neglects the rest. There has got to be better solution than that!!
Now, is Hillary saying that she is beginning to doubt charter schools and we should get back to the old system??? OR is she saying, hey guys there are better solutions out there!!
The article is not clear on that, but if she is saying the later then that's a good thing.
.
The teachers unions and education unions have spent tons of money on skewing research to undermine charter schools which are a big threat to their fat bloated and incompetent beaurocracy.
It's spelled "bureaucracy" not "beaurocracy."
Charter schools only outperform public schools because they can hand-pick their students, something public schools cannot. Thus, they don't take the special needs students or those that have behavior issues. They also have been known to expel or convince to leave, students that under-perform. That way they keep their stats up.
When studies normalize for these favors, charter schools to not over-perform.
But getting to the topic, which is about a New York Post Editorial critical of Hillary Clinton because she supported charter schools in 1996 but now is against them. I guess the Post believes that people shouldn't change their minds, even if new facts challenge their original view.
I believe it is a virtue to switch positions when evidence and facts prove your original viewpoint incorrect.
I find the concept of Charter school appalling. Essentially a person's future is decided entirely by.... LOTTERY!?
Yes, it's good if the child got "drawn", but what about those who lose the lottery? They are basically SOL if the parent can't afford alternatives. It's a half-donkey concept that helps a small portion and neglects the rest. There has got to be better solution than that!!
Now, is Hillary saying that she is beginning to doubt charter schools and we should get back to the old system??? OR is she saying, hey guys there are better solutions out there!!
The article is not clear on that, but if she is saying the later then that's a good thing.
.
So your argument is you don't like some children going to a good school so all children should go to bad schools.
The government sure has a history of doing things boyishly better and cheaper than the private sector, oh wait, never mind.
So your argument is you don't like some children going to a good school so all children should go to bad schools.
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
The government sure has a history of doing things boyishly better and cheaper than the private sector, oh wait, never mind.
Do you have any idea how much a private school's tuition is? And how much money a private school has in its budget vs a public school?
If you want public schools to be as good as private - folk up the money! The problem is that every time the tax is raised even a tiny bit, all conservatives scream bloody murder! They want a state-of-the-art system but refuse to pay for it.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
