NYTimes story - At a Success Academy Charter School, Singling Out Pupils Who Have ‘Got to Go’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

You've taken what I wrote out of context. It means that public schools don't have the ability to turn away students for low performance they way charter schools do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

You've taken what I wrote out of context. It means that public schools don't have the ability to turn away students for low performance they way charter schools do.

Disagree - Public schools do in fact have the ability to pick and choose. DCPS has application schools that can reject low performing students. DCPS schools also routinely kick out OOB students for a variety of reasons. Many public school districts have magnets and other programs which are based on merit. Charters on the other hand are self selecting. Where they do kick students out, it's typically for behavior, not academics. As for behavior, that's typically beyond the scope of schools whether regular public schools or charters - kids with behavior problems are probably better off being in a regular public school which is far more likely to have access to other city services and infrastructure to help deal with social supports as opposed to what a standalone charter would have access to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's not answering the core question or addressing the core reality here. Point is, you have a CHOICE. And, given a choice between school a, b, c, d, e, f, g... and the kid is currently at school b but really really does not want to be at school b and as a result is acting out and being disruptive, why do you want to continue to force that kid to go to school b? Can you answer me that?

From the school's perspective, it does not matter why a parent would do that. It only matters that the parent wants to keep the child in the school. It's the parent's choice. As you say, that's what public charter schools are about -- providing choice to parents about schools. They are not (or should not be) about providing choice to public charter schools about students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Throwing chairs? Hurting other students? Got to go.

Amen

[Anonymous]

To the posted who keeps going on about "kids who don't want to be there" we're talking about five and six year olds. How many of the them want to be in school at all, and at that age what they want is irrelevant. If you can't figure out how to get a handle on a six year old, you have no business being in the education business.

[Anonymous]

The parent of the child whose disciplinary record Moskowitz released to the press has filed a FERPA conplaint with US Department of ED:

http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2015/10/ferpa-complaint-from-fatima-geidi-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/EJcmuc+(NYC+Public+School+Parents)&m=1

Moskowitz disgusts me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not answering the core question or addressing the core reality here. Point is, you have a CHOICE. And, given a choice between school a, b, c, d, e, f, g... and the kid is currently at school b but really really does not want to be at school b and as a result is acting out and being disruptive, why do you want to continue to force that kid to go to school b? Can you answer me that?

From the school's perspective, it does not matter why a parent would do that. It only matters that the parent wants to keep the child in the school. It's the parent's choice. As you say, that's what public charter schools are about -- providing choice to parents about schools. They are not (or should not be) about providing choice to public charter schools about students.

If the parents really cared about their kids, they would work on their kids' behavior. Instead they seem to want to just blame everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parent of the child whose disciplinary record Moskowitz released to the press has filed a FERPA conplaint with US Department of ED:

http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2015/10/ferpa-complaint-from-fatima-geidi-to.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/EJcmuc+(NYC+Public+School+Parents)&m=1

Moskowitz disgusts me

She does more in a day to help kids than you will do in your whole life.

Whinners like you disgust me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

You've taken what I wrote out of context. It means that public schools don't have the ability to turn away students for low performance they way charter schools do.

Disagree - Public schools do in fact have the ability to pick and choose. DCPS has application schools that can reject low performing students. DCPS schools also routinely kick out OOB students for a variety of reasons. Many public school districts have magnets and other programs which are based on merit. Charters on the other hand are self selecting. Where they do kick students out, it's typically for behavior, not academics. As for behavior, that's typically beyond the scope of schools whether regular public schools or charters - kids with behavior problems are probably better off being in a regular public school which is far more likely to have access to other city services and infrastructure to help deal with social supports as opposed to what a standalone charter would have access to.

OOB students that are asked to leave a school are sent to ANOTHER DCPS school. They aren't forced to go private or something. They are still in the system. And no student can attend an application school by right. They are there for a singular purpose and application schools are different from mainstream schools. And if a student leaves an application school, they can still return to another DCPS school. DCPS isn't removing them from the system. They still have to make education "available" for the student. You can argue about the quality of that education if you like but the service, however poor it may be, is still offered. DCPS cannot turn a student away from access to all of their schools for low performance. If that was the case, dozens of schools in DC would be empty and we'd have the highest performing schools (what's left of them) in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

You've taken what I wrote out of context. It means that public schools don't have the ability to turn away students for low performance they way charter schools do.

Disagree - Public schools do in fact have the ability to pick and choose. DCPS has application schools that can reject low performing students. DCPS schools also routinely kick out OOB students for a variety of reasons. Many public school districts have magnets and other programs which are based on merit. Charters on the other hand are self selecting. Where they do kick students out, it's typically for behavior, not academics. As for behavior, that's typically beyond the scope of schools whether regular public schools or charters - kids with behavior problems are probably better off being in a regular public school which is far more likely to have access to other city services and infrastructure to help deal with social supports as opposed to what a standalone charter would have access to.

Yes but legally charters can't pick and choose. If you want to debate whether that is good public policy - that is a reasonable thing to debate. What is frustrating about Eva is that she claims to take everyone and not push some kids out while touting her test scores and pushing to be able to take over parts of public school buildings for her charters. If she wants to be able to pick and choose, she should lobby to have the laws changed instead of just doing what she wants through back doors abuses of the current system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all the posts here, but in the DCPS forum, someone said that the charters are used as a "release valve" here. Not a place for all students but as an option for families that want a good education for their children so their kids aren't stuck in failing schools. There are so many people on the education forums lately saying if a kid doesn't want to learn or is disruptive then let them leave and allow the other kids to get a decent education. Seems to me that is exactly what charters are doing. Letting kids that want to learn, learn. It's hard to begrudge a student an education for the sake of some sort of feigned equality.

There's a big difference between letting a child leave and pushing a child out. Especially keeping in mind that charter schools are publicly-funded.

I agree that there is a difference but charter schools seem to have a different mission than public schools. Public schools must educate all. If charter schools don't have to then they are doing what they can to make sure the students that can and want to learn do. FWIW, I think it's unfair to say charters do a better job than public schools since charters have a self selected population.

Seems to me that "public schools must educate all" is fiction. If that were truly the case, there would be zero demand for charters. If public schools were truly educating all, then why are there so many families who feel their family's needs are not being met? Clearly they are NOT educating all. In fact, I would suggest that public schools are pushing many families out to charters, privates, and homeschooling precisely by not meeting their needs. And, what's palpable all throughout this thread is the anger and frustration being expressed by parents who DO want their kids to be educated, as opposed to having their kids wasting their time sitting in a classroom where it's impossible to learn because of a disruptive classroom environment. If you don't understand this frustration and anger, then you are truly tonedeaf to the core problem so many of us have with traditional public schools. All we want is for our kids to be educated, and if that's not happening in the public school as taxpayers we should have the right to alternatives.

You've taken what I wrote out of context. It means that public schools don't have the ability to turn away students for low performance they way charter schools do.

Disagree - Public schools do in fact have the ability to pick and choose. DCPS has application schools that can reject low performing students. DCPS schools also routinely kick out OOB students for a variety of reasons. Many public school districts have magnets and other programs which are based on merit. Charters on the other hand are self selecting. Where they do kick students out, it's typically for behavior, not academics. As for behavior, that's typically beyond the scope of schools whether regular public schools or charters - kids with behavior problems are probably better off being in a regular public school which is far more likely to have access to other city services and infrastructure to help deal with social supports as opposed to what a standalone charter would have access to.

OOB students that are asked to leave a school are sent to ANOTHER DCPS school. They aren't forced to go private or something. They are still in the system. And no student can attend an application school by right. They are there for a singular purpose and application schools are different from mainstream schools. And if a student leaves an application school, they can still return to another DCPS school. DCPS isn't removing them from the system. They still have to make education "available" for the student. You can argue about the quality of that education if you like but the service, however poor it may be, is still offered. DCPS cannot turn a student away from access to all of their schools for low performance. If that was the case, dozens of schools in DC would be empty and we'd have the highest performing schools (what's left of them) in the country.

That doesn't change the fact that DCPS schools are still picking and choosing on a school by school basis. Yes, kids that get kicked out go back to their default neighborhood DCPS school. It also doesn't speak to the fact that most charter schools are by definition (and as explicitly stated in their charters) singular purpose and not mainstream general purpose schools, whether college prep, language immersion, etc. The notions that a given charter must support every child and be a one-size-fits-all or the flaky idea that neighborhood preferences should be imposed on charters betray a fundamental lack of understanding about what charters are and what purpose they serve. They are supposed to be part of an ecosystem of choices, to complement, augment and extend traditional public school systems with specialized offerings not currently met by the traditional public schools.

[Anonymous]

If DCPS advocates are upset that charters skim off the high performing students, instead of whining about charters, they should be aggressively lobbying DCPS to develop more robust options for high performing students, like G&T programs and application STEM magnets.

Families leave DCPS because DCPS does not meet their needs. That is the fundamental truth here.

And until that fundamental truth changes, you are fighting the wrong fight by attacking charters and the families flocking to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If DCPS advocates are upset that charters skim off the high performing students, instead of whining about charters, they should be aggressively lobbying DCPS to develop more robust options for high performing students, like G&T programs and application STEM magnets.

Families leave DCPS because DCPS does not meet their needs. That is the fundamental truth here.

And until that fundamental truth changes, you are fighting the wrong fight by attacking charters and the families flocking to them.

Just because someone is attacking Success Academy doesn't mean that person is anti-charter. Success Academy has a lower retention rare than KIPP and other similar schools. It's possible to be pro charter and anti Eva Moskowitz

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This has been happening in DC for years.

Public schools are the only schools that really try to help students. Privates -whether charters or the snootiest privates in DC = will find ways to stigmatize and toss out students who don't fit their agenda.

That's why we have to support public education and call out the elite snobs, starting with our dear President, who send their children to private school. They set a terrible example.