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.
I don't know how to break it to you but public charters in California have to follow the same regulations as public schools. Private schools don't but there is zero evidence that a "lack of regulations" is what makes those schools superior in many cases to public schools, it's just as likely that the children of parents who can afford $10,000 a year tuition would likely excel in any school they attended.
The other issue is that private schools can be selective, they can test children before acceptance and reject any that they think won't be able to keep up. I bet the worst public school in California would have better test scores if they could pick and choose who attended the school, dontcha think?
Sounds like a case of "It's not racism when I say it". Funny how your bigotry is showing through.
"But charter schools have broken the link between poverty and school order; the trend there is actually slightly positive: The higher the concentration of students in poverty at a charter school, the safer those students feel. And after controlling for poverty, disability and race, charter schools still retain a statistically significant safety advantage."
It is rare for charters to be violent and disorderly, and it is extremely common for public schools to be violent and disorderly. Also, if a charter is subpar, it is far easier to close it than it is to close a conventional public school (thanks to the ed unions, who should be abolished.) . Without discipline and order there is no learning.
It's not racism for heaven's sake it's poverty, funny how some of you want to try to introduce race into every discussion. And there is no factual basis for your claim that it's rare for charters to be disorderly and violent. Despite your claims, there is nothing sacrosanct about charter schools. When charter schools are safer it might simply be because the parents of the children attending those schools are more involved and in general just better parents.
"Data gathered through the Detroit Police Department show that traditional public schools post higher rates of both reported crime and violent crime in school than do charter schools. Initial findings also show that charter schools exhibited higher perceived safety than traditional public schools (0.68 SD higher). Yet once controls are added for student commute distance and parental involvement—which seek to control for self-selection bias (e.g., more motivated parents may be disproportionately attracted to charter schools, and willing to travel far distances)—these perceived differences mostly go away and are no longer statistically significant." https://edexcellence.net/articles/ar...public-schools
But I want to make it clear, I have no problem with public charter schools, nor do I have a problem with private schools but I take issue with your continued insistence on saying they are always safer or better than public schools, that is simply not true.
My grandson attends a public 'fundamental' school which means the school has strict rules and requires children to follow them and every kid starting in Kindergarten has homework. It's the highest ranked elementary school in the district, around 76% of third graders exceed the state standards for reading proficiency. A mile away is a public charter in which only 14% of third graders read proficiently. So I guess according to you, my son should have enrolled his kid in the charter school, right?
It's not racism for heaven's sake it's poverty, funny how some of you want to try to introduce race into every discussion. And there is no factual basis for your claim that it's rare for charters to be disorderly and violent. Despite your claims, there is nothing sacrosanct about charter schools. When charter schools are safer it might simply be because the parents of the children attending those schools are more involved and in general just better parents.
"Data gathered through the Detroit Police Department show that traditional public schools post higher rates of both reported crime and violent crime in school than do charter schools. Initial findings also show that charter schools exhibited higher perceived safety than traditional public schools (0.68 SD higher). Yet once controls are added for student commute distance and parental involvement—which seek to control for self-selection bias (e.g., more motivated parents may be disproportionately attracted to charter schools, and willing to travel far distances)—these perceived differences mostly go away and are no longer statistically significant." https://edexcellence.net/articles/ar...public-schools
But I want to make it clear, I have no problem with public charter schools, nor do I have a problem with private schools but I take issue with your continued insistence on saying they are always safer or better than public schools, that is simply not true.
My grandson attends a public 'fundamental' school which means the school has strict rules and requires children to follow them and every kid starting in Kindergarten has homework and lots of rules to follow. It's the highest ranked elementary school in the district, around 76% of third graders exceed the state standards for reading proficiency. A mile away is a public charter in which only 14% of third graders read proficiently. So I guess according to you, my son should have enrolled his kid in the charter school, right?
Fundamental schools are not conventional public schools. If they were then the public school system would bot be so troubled and there would be no need for charters. As I have said before, there are ways to reform the public schools without school choice - but they are even more controversial than vouchers let alone charters. You cannot deny that it is much easier to close a bad charter than to close a bad conventional public school.
WaPo has a paywall so I can't read that article, btw.
Fundamental schools are not conventional public schools. If they were then the public school system would bot be so troubled and there would be no need for charters. As I have said before, there are ways to reform the public schools without school choice - but they are even more controversial than vouchers let alone charters. You cannot deny that it is much easier to close a bad charter than to close a bad conventional public school.
WaPo has a paywall so I can't read that article, btw.
You should be able to view it in Chrome incognito, or with Firefox private mode
Charter school advocates “spend their lives saying that they care about kids, but protecting their power and fighting to protect someone who is engaged in self-dealing is not protecting kids,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
Charter school advocates “spend their lives saying that they care about kids, but protecting their power and fighting to protect someone who is engaged in self-dealing is not protecting kids,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
Are teachers protecting kids according to the self serving AFT? If we apply that statement they are not.
Sleepy is right about one thing, bad parents.
However society today does not encourage parents to be good, it encourages them to have fun. It discourages then from disciplining their children which is necessary for the children to learn. Many parents today come from dis-functional families that have no idea how to help the children they do have.
How do you fix that AND why stop parents who do care from using tools like vouchers to help their children?
Are teachers protecting kids according to the self serving AFT? If we apply that statement they are not.
Sleepy is right about one thing, bad parents.
However society today does not encourage parents to be good, it encourages them to have fun. It discourages then from disciplining their children which is necessary for the children to learn. Many parents today come from dis-functional families that have no idea how to help the children they do have.
How do you fix that AND why stop parents who do care from using tools like vouchers to help their children?
Why do they need vouchers except to line the pockets of corporately owned private charters? Every single county in California has open enrollment and most have a number of designated open enrollment schools which have no neighborhood boundaries and there are public charters for parents who want to send their kids to one, so I don't see where we need more 'school choice'. We would do well to use the money that would be spent on vouchers and expand early education and perhaps expand the number of open enrollment schools in each district. Private schools in Sac County are doing just fine, there are plenty of parents who can spend $6,000 to $20,000 a year on their kids education so I hardly see why they need to be subsidized with vouchers.
Why do they need vouchers except to line the pockets of corporately owned private charters? Every single county in California has open enrollment and most have a number of designated open enrollment schools which have no neighborhood boundaries and there are public charters for parents who want to send their kids to one, so I don't see where we need more 'school choice'. We would do well to use the money that would be spent on vouchers and expand early education and perhaps expand the number of open enrollment schools in each district. Private schools in Sac County are doing just fine, there are plenty of parents who can spend $6,000 to $20,000 a year on their kids education so I hardly see why they need to be subsidized with vouchers.
There is a major shortage of charters, which are a type of superior good, and a glut of dysfunctional and dangerous public schools.
As I said before there are ways of fixing public schools without school choice but doing so would be even more controversial than vouchers. The unions would block any move to fix public schools, and in a way I wouldn't blame them because fixing public schools would involve breaking up big districts and breaking the unions. No one likes threats to their own power, particularly the single most powerful special interest group in the state which spends more money on lobbying than Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Tobacco combined.
Charter school advocates “spend their lives saying that they care about kids, but protecting their power and fighting to protect someone who is engaged in self-dealing is not protecting kids,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.
Rodriguez was taking on the most powerful special interest in California so it is not surprising that they'd do anything to take him down.
Randi Weingarten is one to talk. Don't like Trump being President? You can blame Randi Weingarten. Union money made Hillary flip-flop on school choice. She was a long time supporter of school choice but changed her tune in order to please Randi Weingarten. Black voters in Michigan and Wisconsin whose kids now had the opportunities to learn in safe and orderly schools as opposed to prep schools for prison stayed home rather than vote for Hillary. The policies that Randi Weingarten supports mean dead kids, particularly dead black kids, in order to mount a massive employment program for the otherwise unemployable.
Why do they need vouchers except to line the pockets of corporately owned private charters? Every single county in California has open enrollment and most have a number of designated open enrollment schools which have no neighborhood boundaries and there are public charters for parents who want to send their kids to one, so I don't see where we need more 'school choice'. We would do well to use the money that would be spent on vouchers and expand early education and perhaps expand the number of open enrollment schools in each district. Private schools in Sac County are doing just fine, there are plenty of parents who can spend $6,000 to $20,000 a year on their kids education so I hardly see why they need to be subsidized with vouchers.
The vouchers are for kids whose parents care and who need a better school than are available. Simple. Not all CA (or Nationally) schools are good schools.
If you are against vouchers what do you propose to fix the bad schools and to do so, so that next years kids do not need school choice?
What do you have to offer that is viable and as available as vouchers? I imagine everyone would like to hear a good idea.
What do you have to offer that does not line the pockets of a large union, instead of helping the kids?
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.
