Components of population change in the Pittsburgh MSAs by age (2000-2010)

[pman]

Originally Posted by Katiana

The wealthy have always had private school, and/or the ability to live in "good" school districts. Even in "the city", there are frequently "good" schools in the weathy parts of town. Now they have another option, charter schools, and open enrollment. It was my daughter who made this observation that these wealthy, or savvy if not uber-wealthy, parents always seem to manage to get their kids into places like "School of the Arts", "School of Science and Technology", and all sorts of other charter/choice schools. She goes to an urban university and many of her teachers live in the city and have their kids in these schools. They know how to work the system.

I don't really buy your assertion, I know people with kids in the charter system and while they may fit that description, most of the kids in the schools do not fit that description. one guy openly said he was astounded to see the types of kids in the school doing so well.

Originally Posted by squarian

Not actually true, I'm afraid.
1) Charter schools, as public schools, are subject to PSSA tests like all other public schools, and therefore are accountable for students' progress as measured by PSSAs.

2) In PA, charter schools are subject to periodic review by the authorizing body (typically a school board which granted the charter in the first place), specifically to hold the school accountable for its performance.

no, it is true I'm afraid, the regular PS's are also not particularly accountable. for point 2, that's what connections are for. there are plenty of connected charters that get away with more than they should, including sub par performance which drags down overall charter performance.
Brian's pessimistic point is spot on. Philadelphia is the largest district in the state (where widespread PSSA cheating has been uncovered at local schools to show AYP) and certainly, the more good charters there are, the more middle class people will take advantage that probably would have moved out since private school was not an option. there are places where charters have been an abject failure, chester comes to mind, but everything in chester seems to be an abject failure except the soccer team, which isn't getting along very well with its host city.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by pman

no, it is true I'm afraid, the regular PS's are also not particularly accountable.

And I'm guessing you believe that private schools are not accountable, just connected, correct?

Brian's pessimistic point is spot on.

In this case, I agree - the Utilitarian argument has some weight.

there are places where charters have been an abject failure

Thurgood Marshal in Wilkinsburg, for example. About as connected as it gets, since it was founded by a faction of the Wilkinsburg school board who secured its approval and then promptly moved their kids over and, in some cases, resigned from the WSD board in order to take seats on the Thurgood Marshal board. It was notoriously poorly run, verging on outright naked corruption. And it closed down in short order when WSD revoked its charter, proving (to some, anyway) that irresponsibly-managed charter schools can be and are held accountable.

[pman]

Originally Posted by squarian

And I'm guessing you believe that private schools are not accountable, just connected, correct?

no, and that has no relevance.


In this case, I agree - the Utilitarian argument has some weight.

Originally Posted by squarian

proving (to some, anyway) that irresponsibly-managed charter schools can be and are held accountable.

although I suspect you may be a shill, I don't believe that charters can't be held accountable. that's not what I've said.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by pman

I don't really buy your assertion, I know people with kids in the charter system and while they may fit that description, most of the kids in the schools do not fit that description. one guy openly said he was astounded to see the types of kids in the school doing so well.


no, it is true I'm afraid, the regular PS's are also not particularly accountable. for point 2, that's what connections are for. there are plenty of connected charters that get away with more than they should, including sub par performance which drags down overall charter performance.
Brian's pessimistic point is spot on. Philadelphia is the largest district in the state (where widespread PSSA cheating has been uncovered at local schools to show AYP) and certainly, the more good charters there are, the more middle class people will take advantage that probably would have moved out since private school was not an option. there are places where charters have been an abject failure, chester comes to mind, but everything in chester seems to be an abject failure except the soccer team, which isn't getting along very well with its host city.

I have never sent my kids to a charter or choice (magnet) school, but I know many people who have. Some of these schools try to "counsel out" students who do not fit in with the profile of the student there. This is particularly true in charters that emphasize "high academics" (as if other schools do not). Some of these schools, in my area anyway, also have "voluntary" requirements for donations of money and volunteer time, and they put pressure on the parents to comply.

Originally Posted by squarian

And I'm guessing you believe that private schools are not accountable, just connected, correct?



In this case, I agree - the Utilitarian argument has some weight.



Thurgood Marshal in Wilkinsburg, for example. About as connected as it gets, since it was founded by a faction of the Wilkinsburg school board who secured its approval and then promptly moved their kids over and, in some cases, resigned from the WSD board in order to take seats on the Thurgood Marshal board. It was notoriously poorly run, verging on outright naked corruption. And it closed down in short order when WSD revoked its charter, proving (to some, anyway) that irresponsibly-managed charter schools can be and are held accountable.

So how did they promptly move their kids over if they didn't rig the lottery?

BTW, here is a response to my post that you quoted (from another thread).

Originally Posted by eschaton

Of course wealthier parents will gain a disproportionate number of slots, even in lottery systems, because they tend to be both more knowledgeable regarding the system, and more committed to exploiting the system to the fullest. In contrast, many poor parents probably either don't know about magnets, don't understand why they might be important, or just plain don't care.

In addition, some school systems, like Pittsburgh, intentionally balance things. Historically, Pittsburgh intentionally set racial demographics of 50% black, 50% white+other. The purpose was stated to be in order to have a diverse community, but i think in practice it was because once schools begin drifting to much highter than 50% black they become seen as undesirable by white parents sadly, which sets off a chain reaction of white parents increasingly feeling "uncomfortable" until the school is 95% black. In 2003, the Supreme Court found that Pittsburgh couldn't keep the quota system, which has since been replaced with selection measures which seek to "balance" on the basis of family income.

This is the nature of the beast.