Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, I GUARANTEE you there was a lot more going on than "she wouldn't keep her hands folded in her lap." GUARANTEE IT 110%. It's an attack piece on charters (and yes, there is an anti-charter agenda) and I wager they are not telling the full story.

Now, let's take a step back and look at the fundamentals here.

Bet you dollars to donuts that the kids that are acting out and/or struggling with the curriculum DON'T WANT TO BE AT THE CHARTER. So why force it? And why freak out about the fact that they are going back to the regular school?

As for special needs, why try and force a kid with special needs into a charter system that is far less well resourced and staffed for dealing with special needs than the regular school system is?

Aren't charters schools public schools? Why don't they serve all who get in through the lottery process just like neighborhood schools serve all who live IB? Why shouldn't they have to work with disruptive students? Why shouldn't they develop programs for SN kids just like the regular public schools? Why shouldn't they have to fill their empty seats throughout the year just as traditional public schools take new students throughout the year? Are charters really public schools?

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?

And as for developing programs for SN kids, FINE - then PAY THEM TO DO THAT. Currently DCPS has vastly more budget per SN student than is allocated to charters. VASTLY more. And most of the reason for that is that DCPS outsources the worst-case SN students - there's no funding or budget available to charters for doing that as an example. There are HUGE differentials in terms of what is allocated to DCPS schools versus what is allocated to charters - and that's not even getting into facilities and all of the other stuff.

Anonymous wrote:Here is more coverage - including Eva Moskowitz making a child's disciplinary records public http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/29/harlem_success_academy_got_to_go_list_named_undesirable_students.html

If Eva Moskowitz thinks the public policy solution to poor inner city schools is a combination of strict discipline and taking the bottom 5% of kids with behavior problems and segregating them in other separate schools, I wish she would just be honest about it. Instead she spouts platitudes about her schools dealing with same populations as public schools but getting better results - at the same time she is trying to push the weakest kids out. Also, does NY not have the same rules regarding special ed? I did not think that charters could use the need for special ed as a reason to say a kid wasn't a good fit for a school. I thought charters had to meet the student's special ed needs.

I am a NYC public school teacher. I don't know all the rules about charters and special education, but I do know I've read about ones that claim they can't offer the proper services for some needs.

I have followed Success for years and probably read all the press there is on them. They make my blood boil. I see how they're good for a certain type of child, but the comparisons with public school are unequal and unfair. They move into schools, take over areas and try to demand that, for example, staff and students of the public school no longer use an entrance that had been theirs before.

Their space looks different. Due to all their donor money, kids in one hallway may have dilapidated classrooms and on the success side, they're all new; brand new paint and many more resources. It is just not right. Not even getting into Moskowitzs salary.

Here is more coverage - including Eva Moskowitz making a child's disciplinary records public http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/29/harlem_success_academy_got_to_go_list_named_undesirable_students.html

If Eva Moskowitz thinks the public policy solution to poor inner city schools is a combination of strict discipline and taking the bottom 5% of kids with behavior problems and segregating them in other separate schools, I wish she would just be honest about it. Instead she spouts platitudes about her schools dealing with same populations as public schools but getting better results - at the same time she is trying to push the weakest kids out. Also, does NY not have the same rules regarding special ed? I did not think that charters could use the need for special ed as a reason to say a kid wasn't a good fit for a school. I thought charters had to meet the student's special ed needs.

No, I'm not a troll. The point is that I am not advocating for parents to continue sending their kids to failing schools. And saying that I am is like asking people, "When did you stop kicking your dog?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

People like me? I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet on a Friday night. I'm not the one who's coming up with solutions for public schools.

Then why are you advocating for parents to continue sending their kids to failing schools?

Why are you still kicking your dog?

Troll.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

People like me? I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet on a Friday night. I'm not the one who's coming up with solutions for public schools.

Then why are you advocating for parents to continue sending their kids to failing schools?

Why are you still kicking your dog?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

People like me? I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet on a Friday night. I'm not the one who's coming up with solutions for public schools.

Then why are you advocating for parents to continue sending their kids to failing schools?

Anonymous wrote:So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

People like me? I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet on a Friday night. I'm not the one who's coming up with solutions for public schools.

Anonymous wrote:So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

+100

So what are parents at failing schools supposed to do while people like you sit around thinking about a solution to failing schools? Just let their kids sit there and fail?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is saying that charters, as a whole, do a better job than public schools, as a whole?

The main claim, the thing that really matters, is that the good charters do a better job than the bad public schools. Which is why over 40% of parents in DC fight their way out of their neighborhood schools into charters.

But it's just stupid to compare Mundo Verde with Janney. The real comparison is between Mundo Verde and, say, Hendley.

The "competition is the key for good schools" people.

You haven't understood what I said. What those folks want, via charters, is better alternatives for the FAILING public schools. You prefer kids to keep going to horrible schools, where they learn little?

There's a "when did you stop kicking your dog?" question.

Nobody wants failing public schools except for the people who think that there should be no such thing as public schools (many of whom support charter schools as the first step to dismantling the public education system). The question is, how to not have failing public schools? There's no easy or cheap answer for this, but I'm certain that the answer is NOT -- allow everybody who can bail out to bail out to the charter system and then leave the regular public schools for the people who can't bail out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who is saying that charters, as a whole, do a better job than public schools, as a whole?

The main claim, the thing that really matters, is that the good charters do a better job than the bad public schools. Which is why over 40% of parents in DC fight their way out of their neighborhood schools into charters.

But it's just stupid to compare Mundo Verde with Janney. The real comparison is between Mundo Verde and, say, Hendley.

The "competition is the key for good schools" people.

You haven't understood what I said. What those folks want, via charters, is better alternatives for the FAILING public schools. You prefer kids to keep going to horrible schools, where they learn little?

Anonymous wrote:

Who is saying that charters, as a whole, do a better job than public schools, as a whole?

The main claim, the thing that really matters, is that the good charters do a better job than the bad public schools. Which is why over 40% of parents in DC fight their way out of their neighborhood schools into charters.

But it's just stupid to compare Mundo Verde with Janney. The real comparison is between Mundo Verde and, say, Hendley.

The "competition is the key for good schools" people.

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.

Who is saying that charters, as a whole, do a better job than public schools, as a whole?

The main claim, the thing that really matters, is that the good charters do a better job than the bad public schools. Which is why over 40% of parents in DC fight their way out of their neighborhood schools into charters.

But it's just stupid to compare Mundo Verde with Janney. The real comparison is between Mundo Verde and, say, Hendley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I wonder how the reporters got hold of this document:

"At Success Academy Fort Greene, the same day that Ms. Ogundiran heard from the principal, her daughter’s name was one of 16 placed on a list drawn up at his direction and shared by school leaders.
The heading on the list was “Got to Go.”

Isn't this exactly what SWS and Banneker do, and part of the reason why they are great schools?

Why the fake outrage about charters?

The real outrage should zoom in those schools, charter or not, failing most students -- DCPS schools, more often than not.

The big difference is that those are high schools. I'm fine with kids earning their way into magnet high schools, but throwing a 5 year-old out for not sitting with her hands on her lap is insane.