Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:New international family: What’s the achievement gap?
Who has a say in what a child achieves in school??
It's the difference in test scores and other measures of educational attainment between children with more advantages and children with fewer advantages. And since nobody lives in Year Zero, the distribution of advantages among subpopulations is unequal, for historical reasons.
Anonymous wrote:New international family: What’s the achievement gap?
Who has a say in what a child achieves in school??
Anonymous wrote:https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/k-12/bs-md-hogan-charter-schools-20190123-story.html
"Gov. Larry Hogan announces plan to boost charter schools in Maryland"
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't have direct experience with DC schools, but you seem to be arguing that it's better to keep kids in incompetent schools than to admit they're incompetent and offer a better alternative.
But they're not.
Your antecedent is unclear. Are you saying that DC schools aren't incompetent or that charters aren't better.
My limited understanding is that when DC started charters, the DC public schools had a terrible reputation and were widely regarded as incompetent. Am I wrong that they had severe problems at that time, or is it possible that the charter movement by providing competition and trying out different models of education has had a positive effect on the public schools?
If you're saying that charters aren't better, my understanding is that there is a wide variety of quality in charters. Admittedly, some have been awful, but I think some are better than the public schools. On DCUM, I've read people talking positively about different charters.
You are partially correct. When the charter movement in DC started, there were a handful of neighborhood schools that were fine. They were good, in fact. But other neighborhood schools were awful. The neighborhood schools that used to be good are still good. The neighborhood schools that used to be terrible are now even worse. The difference is a whole third option that is mostly catering to UMC white families with young children, who have the resources to work the lottery and to drive all over the city.
In the meantime, this has diverted resources from neighborhood schools, and has been worse for a lot of kids, particularly those whose families don't have the ability to try to lottery into a charter, or whose housing instability meant they weren't on the right list at the right time for PK3, when a lot of those spots are taken.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't have direct experience with DC schools, but you seem to be arguing that it's better to keep kids in incompetent schools than to admit they're incompetent and offer a better alternative.
But they're not.
Your antecedent is unclear. Are you saying that DC schools aren't incompetent or that charters aren't better.
My limited understanding is that when DC started charters, the DC public schools had a terrible reputation and were widely regarded as incompetent. Am I wrong that they had severe problems at that time, or is it possible that the charter movement by providing competition and trying out different models of education has had a positive effect on the public schools?
If you're saying that charters aren't better, my understanding is that there is a wide variety of quality in charters. Admittedly, some have been awful, but I think some are better than the public schools. On DCUM, I've read people talking positively about different charters.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't have direct experience with DC schools, but you seem to be arguing that it's better to keep kids in incompetent schools than to admit they're incompetent and offer a better alternative.
But they're not.
Your antecedent is unclear. Are you saying that DC schools aren't incompetent or that charters aren't better.
My limited understanding is that when DC started charters, the DC public schools had a terrible reputation and were widely regarded as incompetent. Am I wrong that they had severe problems at that time, or is it possible that the charter movement by providing competition and trying out different models of education has had a positive effect on the public schools?
If you're saying that charters aren't better, my understanding is that there is a wide variety of quality in charters. Admittedly, some have been awful, but I think some are better than the public schools. On DCUM, I've read people talking positively about different charters.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I don't have direct experience with DC schools, but you seem to be arguing that it's better to keep kids in incompetent schools than to admit they're incompetent and offer a better alternative.
But they're not.