[East of the River]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

When talking about busing I always thought it was kids from the poor districts being bused to the more affluent districts. I know Rocky Hill was taking some kids from Hartford, but I don't know how many.

I have never heard of the opposite happening i.e. Rocky Hill kids being bused to Hartford. If this was even proposed I think we would see some of the biggest protests in state history. Even rivaling the protest that took place over the income tax in 1990/91.

Can you imagine people paying high property tax in Glastonbury, Avon, Simsbury only to have their kids go to poor schools ? That would unleash some hell fire.

I'm pretty sure it was proposed back in the 70's in at least a few places around the country.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Having a lottery immediately weeds out uninvolved parents. Not for profit charters can also waste money. Success Academy is not for profit but it's CEO pulls in $500,000 per year which is nearly double what the NYC school chancellor makes. Plus nothing stops a not for profit school from being managed by a for profit EMO. Either way, if charters are not under control of the entire public funding them, than they should not be getting public funds.

I have to agree with pretty much everything you said. Even on nonprofits it would be nice if the laws prevented more then certain percentage going to administration.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

When talking about busing I always thought it was kids from the poor districts being bused to the more affluent districts. I know Rocky Hill was taking some kids from Hartford, but I don't know how many.

I have never heard of the opposite happening i.e. Rocky Hill kids being bused to Hartford. If this was even proposed I think we would see some of the biggest protests in state history. Even rivaling the protest that took place over the income tax in 1990/91.

Can you imagine people paying high property tax in Glastonbury, Avon, Simsbury only to have their kids go to poor schools ? That would unleash some hell fire.

This is why I oppose regional school districts. As school systems get larger, they become less accountable for the decisions being made. I could see students living in towns like Glastonbury being bussed into Hartford to achieve district wide racial balance. The state already has a law that if a school has a 25% higher population of minorities than other district schools then the district MUST make changes to better balance the district minorities. I know Fairfield had this problem at McKinley School which went over the 25% a few years back. The town instituted a volunteer program that shifted a few students to adjacent schools so the problem went away for now but continues to haunt the district as new students come into the school and older student move out. Jay

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by JayCT

The town instituted a volunteer program that shifted a few students to adjacent schools so the problem went away for now but continues to haunt the district as new students come into the school and older student move out. Jay

It's still a problem

Plan to address McKinley racial imbalance sparks heated debate - Fairfield Citizen

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Raider111

It's still a problem

Plan to address McKinley racial imbalance sparks heated debate - Fairfield Citizen

Funny, I just read this article and was going to post it. Jay

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Yeah, this is why I'm not a huge fan of regional school districts. I know graduates of Amity and Beacon Falls/Prospect who said it could often take 30 minutes to get to a friends house in school. I also know a kid from Prospect who went to Masuk in Monroe before their school was built - wild!

Yup. I never understood the Masuk thing way back then. The tradeoff to the long drive is a school with enough enrollment to have your typical extracurriculars and sports...and fortunately Beacon Falls is super small. Plenty of people complain about the distance but it makes you wonder if they looked into that before they moved. What stinks is that the state will never dismantle the regions. Orange is certainly big enough to go on their own, but the state turned them down the last time they tried.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

For all that's said about teachers and "union abuse" etc., charters are the exact opposite of that. They work the crap out of their teachers for lower pay and often have higher turnover than public schools. Many times they "cherry pick" the better performing and better behaved kids, making their numbers look better than if they had to take every student in the community in.

As a general rule, the opposite is true. But of course you are welcome to post studies, research to back up your claims.

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Of course Wal-Mart supports charter schools, they are basically run like a Wal-Mart and have a lot of the Wal-Mart philosophy

You would be surprised to know that Walmart also supports left-wing policies. You might even be more surprised that many left-wingers do support right-wing Charter schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/ny...otections.html

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by Raider111

It's still a problem

Plan to address McKinley racial imbalance sparks heated debate - Fairfield Citizen

That's a little bit different in that it's within the town. Towns/cities constantly redistrict for racial balance and population size reasons. It usually goes fine as long as parents don't overreact.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by Henry10

As a general rule, the opposite is true. But of course you are welcome to post studies, research to back up your claims.




You would be surprised to know that Walmart also supports left-wing policies. You might even be more surprised that many left-wingers do support right-wing Charter schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/ny...otections.html

That doesn't make them right. Charters are dishonest and not sustainable.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Having a lottery immediately weeds out uninvolved parents. Not for profit charters can also waste money. Success Academy is not for profit but it's CEO pulls in $500,000 per year which is nearly double what the NYC school chancellor makes. Plus nothing stops a not for profit school from being managed by a for profit EMO. Either way, if charters are not under control of the entire public funding them, than they should not be getting public funds.

I think all charter schools are approved and overseen by state's education boards. I think this is part of the requirement.