Anonymous wrote:

FCPS does not have any charter schools. All traditional public schools. Yet they have great scores and great programs in their schools. Are they "out of touch"? Why does it work for them to have neighborhood traditional schools?


Most school districts aren't like FCPS.

Explain.

FCPS is wealthier than a majority of school districts across the country. FCPS is suburban, as opposed to being urban, rural or small-town.

Anonymous wrote:

Most school districts aren't like FCPS.

Actually, most school districts are even more neighborhood oriented.

You are judging by DC Metro area.

FCPS is suburban, as opposed to DCPS which is neighborhood focused but beyond that your characterization is incorrect. Roughly around 200 counties nationwide out of 3000+ are more urbanized like FCPS, the remainder are far more rural. Many parts of the country, like farming communities in places like Iowa have regional schools, one kid might live 10+ miles away from the next kid in his class, they aren't particularly "neighborhood" focused, in fact even far less so than FCPS.

FCPS does not have any charter schools. All traditional public schools. Yet they have great scores and great programs in their schools. Are they "out of touch"? Why does it work for them to have neighborhood traditional schools?


Most school districts aren't like FCPS.

Explain.

Most school districts aren't like FCPS.

Actually, most school districts are even more neighborhood oriented.

You are judging by DC Metro area.

Anonymous wrote:

This is why charters are flourishing and growing - because they actually think about families' needs, they actually think about how to attract and retain students, they actually think about innovative and creative ways to educate, they actually think about new offerings, they actually think about how to make standards and testing work without taking over everything or sucking the life out of students and teachers. Traditional public schools totally do not get any of that. None of it, whatsoever. Traditional public schools are completely out of touch.

FCPS does not have any charter schools. All traditional public schools. Yet they have great scores and great programs in their schools. Are they "out of touch"? Why does it work for them to have neighborhood traditional schools?

Most school districts aren't like FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

^ Some charters have failed. Why? Is there a lesson in that?

Some traditional schools have also failed.

^ Some charters have failed. Why? Is there a lesson in that?

This is why charters are flourishing and growing - because they actually think about families' needs, they actually think about how to attract and retain students, they actually think about innovative and creative ways to educate, they actually think about new offerings, they actually think about how to make standards and testing work without taking over everything or sucking the life out of students and teachers. Traditional public schools totally do not get any of that.

So what is the solution that you propose? Turn them all into charters?

This is why charters are flourishing and growing - because they actually think about families' needs, they actually think about how to attract and retain students, they actually think about innovative and creative ways to educate, they actually think about new offerings, they actually think about how to make standards and testing work without taking over everything or sucking the life out of students and teachers. Traditional public schools totally do not get any of that. None of it, whatsoever. Traditional public schools are completely out of touch.

FCPS does not have any charter schools. All traditional public schools. Yet they have great scores and great programs in their schools. Are they "out of touch"? Why does it work for them to have neighborhood traditional schools?

Neighborhood schools have always been a huge driver of school mediocrity because they never had to care about actually meeting student needs. The only thing they had to do was throw the doors open and students would be required to show up no matter how good or bad the school is. They were the only game in town and held the monopoly on education. They never had to worry about competing for kids, they never had to worry about retaining kids, it was just "tough luck, take it or leave it." What a lousy model. That's how we ended up with privates, parochials, and now charters. Traditional public schools have never understood what families actually want or care about.

Not true. It depended on the neighborhood and how involved the parents were. There was a lot of caring where I grew up. I had a great neighborhood public school. They were not the only game in town (there were privates and parochials despite you thinking that those are more recent things). You know why they cared? Because the teachers lived right in the neighborhoods with us. We knew them, their kids, etc. They played on the same teams with us, ate at the same restaurants, went to the same weddings and funerals, shopped at the same stores, went to the same churches, and so on. Heck, I used to see my teachers at the lake, at the gas station, etc. They read the same newspapers where every year they listed kids who went to college, kids who got scholarships, kids who went to service academies. When kids won competitions, they were in the paper. People were proud to be part of a school where good things were happening for kids. The teachers and staff wanted the same things we wanted---good schools and opportunity. They did not treat us like "tough luck" at all. We were part of a community and that mattered. Now that has been torn apart so the feds use "sticks" to try to get people to be "better". It works so much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why shouldn't parents be able to move their kids to a school that performs better?

They do have that option. It's called moving. But instead of having the parents move, all you have done is move the school. You have forced one school to close down and now that community no longer has a school and all of their kids are being bused to other schools. You destroyed the sense of community that they had before (and that must count for something). These things happened because of the testing and the punitive measures tied to it. These were unfunded mandates that hurt poor communities even more. Where are those kids now and how are they doing? Better? The same? Worse? Did you follow up on that?

Neighborhood schools have always been a huge driver of school mediocrity because they never had to care about actually meeting student needs. The only thing they had to do was throw the doors open and students would be required to show up no matter how good or bad the school is. They were the only game in town and held the monopoly on education. They never had to worry about competing for kids, they never had to worry about retaining kids, it was just "tough luck, take it or leave it." What a lousy model. That's how we ended up with privates, parochials, and now charters. Traditional public schools have never understood what families actually want or care about.

This is why charters are flourishing and growing - because they actually think about families' needs, they actually think about how to attract and retain students, they actually think about innovative and creative ways to educate, they actually think about new offerings, they actually think about how to make standards and testing work without taking over everything or sucking the life out of students and teachers. Traditional public schools totally do not get any of that. None of it, whatsoever. Traditional public schools are completely out of touch.

NCLB isn't imposing a process. It's just highlighting the fact that there is a problem with process and is leaving it up to schools to improve their process.

NCLB does impose a process. It mandates high stakes standardized testing every year from grades 3-8 and once in high school. Because of waivers, the punitive parts of it are at bay right now. But it mandates the testing and all that goes with that process. And Cuomo in New York takes the teacher evaluation part of the waiver seriously. Maybe somebody needs to talk to him . . . oh, wait, parents and students are boycotting the testing up there.

^ take it or leave it - except you couldn't even leave it, unless you had some alternative, attendance was mandatory...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why shouldn't parents be able to move their kids to a school that performs better?

They do have that option. It's called moving. But instead of having the parents move, all you have done is move the school. You have forced one school to close down and now that community no longer has a school and all of their kids are being bused to other schools. You destroyed the sense of community that they had before (and that must count for something). These things happened because of the testing and the punitive measures tied to it. These were unfunded mandates that hurt poor communities even more. Where are those kids now and how are they doing? Better? The same? Worse? Did you follow up on that?

Neighborhood schools have always been a huge driver of school mediocrity because they never had to care about actually meeting student needs. The only thing they had to do was throw the doors open and students would be required to show up no matter how good or bad the school is. They were the only game in town and held the monopoly on education. They never had to worry about competing for kids, they never had to worry about retaining kids, it was just "tough luck, take it or leave it." What a lousy model. That's how we ended up with privates, parochials, and now charters. Traditional public schools have never understood what families actually want or care about.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/...ts-dont-count-against-students

Cuomo doesn't get it either.

Wow. Cuomo is zigging and zagging all over the place.