[Henry10]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I think someone here already said it, but if I was a parent in a so called "low performing district" I would be personally insulted if another person said to me that my child can't do well UNLESS they go to school in a supposedly "higher performing district." It would just make me push my kid more to succeed in spite of the naysayers.

Yes, the concept of school performance is fuzzy. Highly-rated PSs have bad students, and bad schools have excellent students. So that leaves the middle. But who is looking for his kid to be average, right?

I went into a very bad City school in NYC. Type of school that is mentioned usually in the police blotters and newspaper obituaries. Everybody in the neighborhood (kinda) went there. I had friends, played lotsa sports, chased girls, music, fights, funny business-- the usual stuff the boys do or not supposed to do. I actually didn't fully realize how bad it was, until I became a parent myself. But my parents didn't think twice about sending us there.

School ratings nowadays play into the emotional side of young parents. Maybe some city parents of today don't look at schools very differently of how my parents looked at it. Maybe for some parents, their kids can go to the neighborhood school, however bad Ratings show it to be.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

I think someone here already said it, but if I was a parent in a so called "low performing district" I would be personally insulted if another person said to me that my child can't do well UNLESS they go to school in a supposedly "higher performing district." It would just make me push my kid more to succeed in spite of the naysayers.

Also, IMO since I attended city public schools & suburban public schools I think there was far less drug abuse and peer pressure in the city schools. City school kids did have more teen girls getting pregnant and other social issues though that one wouldn't see as much in suburban schools. This is probably more due to (lack of money) than any thing else though and not the schools.

Agreed. Thank you. And while more kids got pregnant at my son's school then they did my daughters, he got quite the lesson in the importance of safe sex.

[SeaDoo342]

Just another example of a money hungry, failing urban district trying to get as much money as possible from the suburbs... ridiculous..


Bridgeport schools a magnet for suburban money - Connecticut Post

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Yes, the concept of school performance is fuzzy. Highly-rated PSs have bad students, and bad schools have excellent students. So that leaves the middle. But who is looking for his kid to be average, right?

I went into a very bad City school in NYC. Type of school that is mentioned usually in the police blotters and newspaper obituaries. Everybody in the neighborhood (kinda) went there. I had friends, played lotsa sports, chased girls, music, fights, funny business-- the usual stuff the boys do or not supposed to do. I actually didn't fully realize how bad it was, until I became a parent myself. But my parents didn't think twice about sending us there.

School ratings nowadays play into the emotional side of young parents. Maybe some city parents of today don't look at schools very differently of how my parents looked at it. Maybe for some parents, their kids can go to the neighborhood school, however bad Ratings show it to be.

So you did well in a city school? Why the need to bash them as much as possible then? I know we all want things better for our kids and if you think a different situation is better that's fine. But you don't need to look down on parents who choose (or not choose) city schools. You don't need to make the schools "worse" than you thought they were either.

[JayCT]

Please stop the bickering and return to the subject of the OP. JayCT, Moderator

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by Henry10

Not sure why you don't get it -- I am against forcing others to provide for your parasitic lifestyle. And you aren't??!!

I am also against centralizing education power, as a result of a corrupt, collusive alliance -- welfare class and politicians, who can't exist without each other.

"I give you my vote, so you can go next door, rob some of my neighbor's money and give it to me." It's morally corrupt and not befitting a civil society.

Cities are laboratories of social policies. As "programs" (read Govt's social engineering of society) have expanded and intensified, City Schools and society at large are more segregated today than it was before.

I bash all the above, not the "bad" schools per se.

Spot on

[Raider111]

So,
have the judge and State decided anything yet?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Raider111

So,
have the judge and State decided anything yet?

Too soon. I believe the state is asking for an extension to the timeline to allow them to develop a response. Jay

[MrGompers]

Originally Posted by Raider111

So,
have the judge and State decided anything yet?

Originally Posted by JayCT

Too soon. I believe the state is asking for an extension to the timeline to allow them to develop a response. Jay

The ruling came down on about 9-7-2016. The judge gave the state AG 180 days to submit a plan.

Judge, Citing Inequality, Orders Connecticut to Overhaul Its School System - The New York Times

"Judge Moukawsher did not dictate any new funding formula in his ruling or explain what the state’s graduation requirements or other policies should be. Instead, he ordered the attorney general’s office to submit plans within 180 days to fix the areas he had found deficient. It was not immediately clear who might draw up the proposals or whether the state would appeal the decision"

I fully expect the state to appeal, although I haven't heard anything about that yet. At the minimum it would give the state more time to come up with a plan. There's no way they can do it in 180 days anyway.

Also, while on the subject of charter schools our neighbor MA has voted AGAINST via referendum to expand charter schools in that state. Guess they don't think charter schools are so great.

[AMSS]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

The ruling came down on about 9-7-2016. The judge gave the state AG 180 days to submit a plan.

Judge, Citing Inequality, Orders Connecticut to Overhaul Its School System - The New York Times

"Judge Moukawsher did not dictate any new funding formula in his ruling or explain what the state’s graduation requirements or other policies should be. Instead, he ordered the attorney general’s office to submit plans within 180 days to fix the areas he had found deficient. It was not immediately clear who might draw up the proposals or whether the state would appeal the decision"

I fully expect the state to appeal, although I haven't heard anything about that yet. At the minimum it would give the state more time to come up with a plan. There's no way they can do it in 180 days anyway.

Also, while on the subject of charter schools our neighbor MA has voted AGAINST via referendum to expand charter schools in that state. Guess they don't think charter schools are so great.

Ironically, the only towns that voted yes were the super wealthy towns where many charter investors likely live. They were shot down everywhere else including the cities that have charters.