[AMSS]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

I guess they think they can have better results by eschewing those laws the traditional ones follow. I don't know what these laws are but in any industry there are disruptors who try to operate outside the accepted system. What's wrong with that though? Some people have good motives, some have flawed motives, etc. for starting any venture but as long as the consumers benefit, isn't that what's important? It seems like charters would allow more choices for both "good kids" and "bad kids" than just their local public school, right? I thought the lottery system allows for that kind of a mixed bag rather than performance/geography-based selection.

Having an "alternative school" for at-risk kids is just a different side of the coin from having an "alternative school" for good kids (aka charters or magnets), except the latter seems a little more palatable. No one would want to send their kids to a school specifically for at-risk kids.

That would be called a magnet. Alternatives are funded by the public and overseen by the public. Charters are funded by the public but overseen by a private entity...that should not be the case.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Alternatives are funded by the public and overseen by the public.

Don't confuse Public with politicians and bureaucrats. Public oversees nothing. It's just an illusion and demagoguery.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Don't confuse Public with politicians and bureaucrats. Public oversees nothing. It's just an illusion and demagoguery.

Honestly not to feed the beast too much, but one of the reasons we chose a Charter school was it was much easier to get involved then the public schools. Local boards of ED can be large cumbersome and tend to be very political as such it's hard for a parent to get much. We have found our local Charter which is run and manged as a non profit very easy to deal with and much more receptive to parents then the local board of ED. (you can shoot en email to the board of directors and actually get a response later that day)

That said this isn't always the case and Charter schools should be held accountable for their failings. CT added a number of transparency laws to Charters, really I'm not sure what else they really need to do.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by AMSS

No it's not the same. You can have an amazing teacher but a totally apathetic student for many reasons. Measuring schools by how a student "performs" (which means test scores) has been proven wrong time and again. That thinking is what has lead to the cancer that is charter schools.

But that's still the point how can you take a percentage of students from one school and put them in another school and get better results? Yes some of it that less involved parents just won't sign up for the lottery but some of it has to be the actual school.
Again if you have great public schools a Charter likely won't help. It really is mostly a soloution for struggling schools.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Don't confuse Public with politicians and bureaucrats. Public oversees nothing. It's just an illusion and demagoguery.

Sounds like someone was too lazy to attend a BOE meeting, vote on education budgets and get involved in their kids' schools.

Originally Posted by East of the River

But that's still the point how can you take a percentage of students from one school and put them in another school and get better results? Yes some of it that less involved parents just won't sign up for the lottery but some of it has to be the actual school.
Again if you have great public schools a Charter likely won't help. It really is mostly a soloution for struggling schools.

Except charters are not a solution. They only take some of the kids leaving the rest behind...only they take the good kids and money with them. Add to that the reality that most charters are not succeeding because they aren't overseen by a higher education department or the people, then you have a lie.

[East of the River]

Here is the real issue. Your living in Bridgeport but can't afford rent in a better school district, or you bought a house there and the real estate market traps you there because you over spent etc. Your kids can go to a district school with very poor performance and a history of safety issues or a charter school that comes close to the neighboring rich districts perfromance and no safety issues?

Where would you send your kids? Everything else is just looking down at the problem form a high horse.

By the way while I'm not a teacher, the majority of my relatives are or were public school teachers, including a former superintendent of a large school district in Western Mass.

[BicoastalAnn]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Sounds like someone was too lazy to attend a BOE meeting, vote on education budgets and get involved in their kids' schools.



Except charters are not a solution. They only take some of the kids leaving the rest behind...only they take the good kids and money with them. Add to that the reality that most charters are not succeeding because they aren't overseen by a higher education department or the people, then you have a lie.

If they're not succeeding (assuming you mean test results or graduation rates) then how can they survive? Why would parents still want to send their kids there?

It seems like you're OK with magnet schools taking the good kids and leaving the rest behind but not charters because of a governance issue... but for some parents, it doesn't matter who governs what as long as their kids are getting a good education. Parents have come here with indecision with choosing between top tier public schools because of things like culture, specialty programs, etc. so I don't know why it's bad to also give parents who can't afford those top tier public schools some choice as well.

I don't know what you mean by charters being "a lie."

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by AMSS

Sounds like someone was too lazy to attend a BOE meeting, vote on education budgets and get involved in their kids' schools.



Except charters are not a solution. They only take some of the kids leaving the rest behind...only they take the good kids and money with them. Add to that the reality that most charters are not succeeding because they aren't overseen by a higher education department or the people, then you have a lie.

Most of the charters seem to be outperforming the districts they pull from what I can see.

SDE: Performance Office

Money also does not follow the kids in CT it's separate state fund. Some towns have kicked in some and there is also private donations. If a kid leaves a public school for a charter the town still gets that money and the charter gets some from a different account. Honestly in CT's bizarre funding system city schools might actually be getting more money thanks to the Charter schools.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

If they're not succeeding (assuming you mean test results or graduation rates) then how can they survive? Why would parents still want to send their kids there?

It seems like you're OK with magnet schools taking the good kids and leaving the rest behind but not charters because of a governance issue... but for some parents, it doesn't matter who governs what as long as their kids are getting a good education. Parents have come here with indecision with choosing between top tier public schools because of things like culture, specialty programs, etc. so I don't know why it's bad to also give parents who can't afford those top tier public schools some choice as well.

I don't know what you mean by charters being "a lie."

Yeah that's it CT is an expensive place and the less expensive places have worse schools. Charters help level that some what. I'm not a big privatize everything kind of guy, but I do like having choices.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

If they're not succeeding (assuming you mean test results or graduation rates) then how can they survive? Why would parents still want to send their kids there?

It seems like you're OK with magnet schools taking the good kids and leaving the rest behind but not charters because of a governance issue... but for some parents, it doesn't matter who governs what as long as their kids are getting a good education. Parents have come here with indecision with choosing between top tier public schools because of things like culture, specialty programs, etc. so I don't know why it's bad to also give parents who can't afford those top tier public schools some choice as well.

I don't know what you mean by charters being "a lie."

Magnets are still overseen by the public. And any good public school is good because of the governance of parents and citizens. Teach those parents you speak of to be involved in their neighborhood schools. Why would you teach them that running away from where they live is the only avenue to success?

Charters are a lie because the successful ones have huge attrition rates, don't backfill, and ignore special ed. That is not a school that is getting it done if they can only handle easy to educate kids.

As for the first paragraph...why is it that every failing school has had success stories? Harding, Bassick, Central, Bulkely, Hartford Public, Wilby, Kennedy and Crosby have all put kids in fantastic universities. So why is that some kids get there and others don't? It's because of the kids with trouble lives...kids whose parents really don't care what school their kids go to. Graduation rates and test scores only tell you what the student demographics are and not what the school offers. Closing those schools isn't the answer; working with at risk kids and families is.