Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Remember that Huffington Post article about how terrible charter schools are? Yeah, seems they got all the facts and figures wrong. Other than that the story was fine   (michigancapitolconfidential.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, HuffPost, charter schools, percentiles, CREDO, positive result, TPS  
•       •       •

10534 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2013 at 4:15 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-24 12:28:55 AM  
7 votes:
A NEWS SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN FROM THE MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Newsletter put out by a conservative think tank. Seems legit.
2013-01-24 03:20:51 AM  
6 votes:
Dear Subby, The Huffington Post article did not say that charter schools were terrible. It said that, on average, they weren't performing much better than public schools in the same district and in some cases they were performing worse. The study supports that claim.
2013-01-24 02:01:52 AM  
5 votes:
Charter schools and vouchers are proof that education works great when you get to hand pick your students or tell the retarded kids to eat sh**.

/I'm aware that some charter schools produce fantastic results and mostly attribute the lack of derptastic school boards and long term fixed asset costs (like athletic facilities) to success
//I live in a state that does it wrong, hence the bias
///Slashies longer than actual comment!
2013-01-24 05:05:03 AM  
4 votes:

profplump: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ignoring a slightly bigger pile of information isn't going to make the problem better

But it's so much easier to let parents compete over the 1 or 2 good schools than to make policy changes that improve education for everyone.


Maybe, and I know this is going out on a limb here, but maybe, we could follow the educational lead of every other industrialized country on the planet and set education policy at the federal level by experts, rather than letting it be controlled by Mary Sue who ran for local school board when she found out they were telling little Susie about evolution. Crazy thought I know.

/yes, I know federally-elected Republicans would just fark it up.
//this is why we can't have nice things.
2013-01-24 04:26:05 AM  
4 votes:
Successful charter schools scare liberals because they show how non-union schools can do better by their students. Such schools make parents stand up and take notice and demand more money be spent funding charter schools. That money comes from the state education budget, and non-charter public schools lose that funding. Loss of funding means more union (Democrat) teachers out of a job.

It always comes down to money. It's never about the kids, as far as liberals are concerned.
2013-01-24 07:22:32 AM  
3 votes:

Shakin_Haitian: All this union hate. Yeah, it's farked up that teachers make 125k, only work 25 hours a week, and have no standards they have to meet, but that's no reason to hate teachers.

Oh wait, that's right, the teachers I know work full time and usually take work home while having to meet all these certifications, all while not even breaking 30k.

You people are farking idiots.


You seem unable to distinguish between teachers' unions and teachers. There is a difference. Teachers do the work. Most, except for those incompetents protected by the unions, do a good job. They're not underpaid, they're not abused, they are not required to daily perform the 12 labors of Hercules.

The teachers unions are the problem. They are the group that does not teach, they don't help teachers improve their teaching, they don't set any standards of education. They just skim large amounts of money from public education funding to use in lobbying and political efforts. They add no value while they extort ever-increasing amounts of education dollars.

Example: Most teachers in the state of Michigan are covered by a health insurance program called MESSA. It is a health insurance program that serves teachers. It is extremely expensive, relative to other products in the market, but it kicks back money to the unions. Several locals have gone on strike rather than give up MESSA in favor of a more cost effective insurance plan. One local district, however, that was in rather desperate financial straits, refused to budge and had the teachers working without a contract for 2 years rather than agree to keep MESSA in the contract. The union was furious and had a huge PR campaign claiming that the school district wanted the teachers to work with no insurance. Understand that salary and working conditions were not an issue - they had been resolved. Finally, pressure from the teachers forced the union to settle and MESSA was dropped in favor of another insurance plan that saved the district a couple thousand per teacher per year. 3 years down the road and the teachers are extremely happy with the new plan because the coverage is better and dealing with the provider for payment of claims and reimbursement is better and easier. The MEA, however, still goes to the mat to keep MESSA.

Stories like that are what makes teachers, because of their representation by greedy, monopolistic unions, unpopular with taxpayers who are forced to foot the bill for the union shenanigans.
2013-01-24 05:09:28 AM  
3 votes:

powhound: VOUCHERS are a way to collect taxpayer money and funnel it to private schools.


What you say is 100% true. But vouchers are also a way for poor families to get their children out of whatever terrible public school the state has provided.

I agree it's not a good long-term plan, or good public policy, or efficient use of state revenues. I even agree that it can be detrimental to education (though if we applied reasonable standards to voucher-eligible schools it doesn't have to be). But it can also be a way to immediately and dramatically increase educational quality; while I would definitely favor other solutions, children currently in need of an education are still being screwed by the existing system, and vouchers can help.
2013-01-24 04:48:41 AM  
3 votes:

fusillade762: A NEWS SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN FROM THE MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Newsletter put out by a conservative think tank. Seems legit.


SO MUCH TIHS!! The Mackinac center is basically fox news/teabaggers of michigan...
2013-01-24 04:21:32 AM  
3 votes:
While I don't like HuffPo I don't trust this source as far as I can throw the apartment building I live in.
2013-01-24 09:46:04 AM  
2 votes:

moos: So the parents who put the time in for their own kids should put their kids in schools where the majority of other kids in the school don't have a good home support network?


That's not the point that was being made. The point being made was that charter schools are cheaper and do a better job than public schools. This was refuted with the argument that public schools have to serve everyone but charters get a subset of students that have better chances of success before they even set foot into a charter school. If you want to segregate students by parental involvement, you could do that in public schools just as well as in charter. It's completely unrelated to the belief that charter schools somehow sprinkle magic learning dust on students through the power of privatization and that's why they have better metrics than public schools. If you believe segregation is better, then make that argument rather than trying to use it to try to justify charter schools due to apple to oranges comparisons. Fight for your segregationist cause instead of hiding behind a charter.
2013-01-24 07:28:38 AM  
2 votes:
Step 1) Stop trying to mainstream kids that have learning/behavioral disabilities that don't allow them to keep up with the class.

Step 2) Kick the disruptive kids out of school if they don't want to be there

Step 3) Allow bad teachers to be fired

Step 4) Win
2013-01-24 07:13:25 AM  
2 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Charter schools and vouchers are proof that education works great when you get to hand pick your students or tell the retarded kids to eat sh**.


Go watch "Waiting for Superman"

Most if not all charter schools pick their schools via lottery and 800 parents are all too happy to sit in a Gym for 5 hours and see if their kid is one of the 34 or so that get their name picked.

HAMMERTOE: Is there any endeavor at all where private enterprise doesn't perform circles around the government? Aside from burning million$ greasing its own wheels, that is. The government has elevated that to an art form.


Military, law enforcement, patent law, a fair system of courts - all things that government is actually enumerated to do.

GameSprocket: Why don't we improve the terrible public school instead?


"improve" is the delicate word. To people like the NEA, improve means fatter contracts and pushing more money towards a 120 year old education model


Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Maybe, and I know this is going out on a limb here, but maybe, we could follow the educational lead of every other industrialized country on the planet and set education policy at the federal level by experts,


What is the litmus test for the so-called experts and why should a parent be told where to send their child to school? I'm sorry but there's no way in hell that the people who gave us "no child left behind" are going to be competent enough to run education for millions of kids in tens of thousands of communities around the country. The aggregate of tens of millions of parents making decisions with teachers and administrators at local and state levels is what produces a quality education. Ultimately a kid growing up in Iowa who is destined to work on farm machinery and is damn happy to do it is going to require a different school experience than a kid growing up in Palo Alto, CA.
2013-01-24 06:43:23 AM  
2 votes:
All this union hate. Yeah, it's farked up that teachers make 125k, only work 25 hours a week, and have no standards they have to meet, but that's no reason to hate teachers.

Oh wait, that's right, the teachers I know work full time and usually take work home while having to meet all these certifications, all while not even breaking 30k.

You people are farking idiots.
2013-01-24 05:45:35 AM  
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Successful charter schools scare liberals because they show how non-union schools can do better by their students. Such schools make parents stand up and take notice and demand more money be spent funding charter schools. That money comes from the state education budget, and non-charter public schools lose that funding. Loss of funding means more union (Democrat) teachers out of a job.

It always comes down to money. It's never about the kids, as far as liberals are concerned.


Yes, sweetie, it's the liberals who care about making money, private companies will do it for free! And of course we all know that teachers making $40k are bankrupting the country and should have their taxes raised and retirement slashed and medical costs raised, while people making $250k are just barely scraping by, and desperately need their taxes lowered.
2013-01-24 05:08:02 AM  
2 votes:
Anybody who looks at any news outlet, be it left, right or otherwise, as anything other than a source of entertainment or to see what agenda they're trying to push, deserves to be an uninformed rube.
2013-01-24 04:45:46 AM  
2 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Charter schools and vouchers are proof that education works great when you get to hand pick your students or tell the retarded kids to eat sh**.

/I'm aware that some charter schools produce fantastic results and mostly attribute the lack of derptastic school boards and long term fixed asset costs (like athletic facilities) to success
//I live in a state that does it wrong, hence the bias
///Slashies longer than actual comment!


fyi: there is a major point of confusion between charter schools and private schools. I have met teachers who cannot tell the difference.

Charter school: state funded. The money that would have gone to the regular public school gets funneled to the charter school.

Private $chool: not state funded. Is not required to meet any guidelines in regards to accreditation (think of it as your typical religious school). Does not get state funding.

VOUCHERS are a way to collect taxpayer money and funnel it to private schools. The money you pay in taxes will go to some snowflake who cannot afford some private school, where they can receive whatever education the private school hands out (usually religious indoctrination is part of the program).

Even here in Utah the farktard legislative body passed a voucher program, and the people rose up and overrode that in a referendum ballot. That should tell you how outlandish the voucher concept is....60% or whatever here are Mormon (and a voucher program would have resulted in a whole lot of Mormon indoctrination schools).
2013-01-24 04:44:29 AM  
2 votes:

Osomatic: I'm sort of torn.  I understand that charter schools can be frickin' horrible, but at the same time my kid was incredibly lucky to get into a local charter school that is frankly awesome - it was actually started by parents, and is not for profit, and does a great job.  I love my charter but I can also see how awful they can be.  It's troublesome. I wonder if there is some way to fix charters rather than just outlaw them entirely.


Look, there are some great charter schools, just like there are some great (insert: public, private, parochial, etc) schools. If you have a child attending a good charter school in an area with bad public schools, I'm sure it's a god-send. But rather than focus our effort on improving charter schools, it makes much more sense to just create real reform for public schools. We don't need more "laboratories of innovation." There are decades of scientific literature addressing how to best teach children that is being systemically ignored. Ignoring a slightly bigger pile of information isn't going to make the problem better.

Charter schools are just ultimately a way for ideologically-driven people to create the sort of system they want rather than the one that most effectively teaches the most kids. Fixing them isn't the answer at all.
2013-01-24 04:20:01 AM  
2 votes:
My wrong interpretation is superior to your wrong interpretation!
2013-01-24 04:18:21 PM  
1 vote:

Persnickety: Until a VIP complains about that environment.


Those same "VIP's" dont send their kids to public school anyways.

Persnickety: Yeah, who needs literacy? Totally overrated and unnecessary in the 21st century. Oh wait, you think everyone in the future is going to be a robotics expert and work in high tech. Please tell me that was a joke and you're not that ignorant of human beings in general.


*facepalm*

In a society where literacy is pretty much universal, our education system ought to evolve towards the ideas of the future - which is - how do we use technology to make our lives better. Yes, I am pushing for an education system that wants to focus on the challenges of the world and preparing students for them, yet at the same time am advocating illiteracy. Read it aloud and listen to how dumb your arguments sound.

Persnickety: As to grocery stores, lousy ones will close and that will be that. Maybe you'll have one week of bad food. A lousy school will have already damaged kids and for many it will be too late. So how about we make sure we don't have them instead of waiting until they've already done their damage?


Exactly my point. Bad stores have bad sales and close. Bad schools get state/fed funding poured into them, at the expense of other school districts, which usually finds its hands in the NEA, which protects bad teachers and refuses to reward good ones and it takes decades to do anything about it whereas a parent who has their child in a failing school can simply opt to move their child from the failing school to a better one.

In other words, you feel that regardless of how bad a school is, the only say a parent should have is whom they vote for to run the local school board.
2013-01-24 03:38:31 PM  
1 vote:

Persnickety: But how are more charter schools going to help? Please be specific. In my mind, good schools are mostly good because the teachers and students are good. Shuffling kids around doesn't change the students. Teaching pays crap and there are a limited number of good people willing to do it when good people can easily make more money elsewhere. I understand why private schools can be better: they cherry pick both students and teachers. But without the monetary incentives to attract good teachers or the ability to cherry pick students, convince me we should abandon what has mostly worked in this country.


Persnickety: .. that has produced one of the most literate and scientifically advanced nations on earth. Gotcha.


Charter schools help because they offer choice. The teachers are accountable to those who pay their salaries. The academic standards are generally stricter and they attract top teaching talent who care about - Teaching. Your whole argument thus far is that the public schools, while average to below average are universally accessible while there's nothing to suggest that Charter schools, which introduce standards, accountability and have demonstrable results cannot also be just as accessible. You're "Shuffling" kids to a better school, with a more challenging environment.

In society today, I have a choice of 7 grocery stores within 10 miles of my house. Is there any real reason why a parent cannot have 7 choices as to where they send their kids to school and why a local/state government cant say, "We know we have to tax you for the whole school thing, but we are at least going to let you pick where your kid goes to school. We have 7 choices for you to choose from in your community" Instead a child's educational future is largely determined by where they live as it relates to a bus route. If you cant find the stupidity in that, i got nothing for ya.

The whole "We have literacy" argument you're humping is awesome. This isn't 1880's America where we sent 12 year olds off to the salt mines and the smarty-pants sons of senators went to school to learn how to read books. We are inundated with daily reminders that our Kids are lagging behind dozens of countries in critical areas. The challenge is no longer literacy but producing a generation of workers who are capable of writing CNC code or who are capable on understanding robotics to build the next generation of prosthetics. This whole "Meh, its worked so far" is exactly my point. It is time for an overhaul as our math and science rankings worldwide, along with a snapshot of where jobs are trending internationally also suggests.

Phinn: If they really are indistinguishable from one another, ethically and economically, then why don't you BACK THE FARK OFF and let people DECIDE if they want to pay for your crappy government schools?


Because every progressive idea: Unions, social security, charity, government schools would fail miserably if ever left to stand on its own merits in a free society.
2013-01-24 03:16:50 PM  
1 vote:

PsiChick: ...Or, you know, mandatory and free public schools exist for very important and very relevant reasons in today's society, and undermining that instead of trying to fix them would be unpatriotic and help contribute to a society with even worse class problems than we have today.


Nothing is free. That's not an argument or a point of advocacy. It's just an observable feature of reality.

If the type of schooling you advocate were truly so very relevant and very important and all that, then you would have no trouble getting people to pay for it VOLUNTARILY.

They don't.

Admit it -- you resort to guns to raise money because you are a failure at developing a product or service that people want enough to buy.

It's not surprising that people who are on the receiving end of that money overwhelmingly support the continuation of the system of the forced payment of money ... for them.

Nor is it surprising that the people who are in charge of the goon squad that collects the money is also in favor of it.
2013-01-24 01:51:16 PM  
1 vote:

draypresct: Actually, the food available in your area is pretty much decided upon by collective decision making. Your supermarket will not stock a food that you, and only you, will buy.


That's one of the dumbest things that anyone has ever said on the Internet, and that includes the YouTube comments under Justin Bieber videos.

In a society where things like rights and liberty are more than nominally extant, consumers get to choose what to buy, from a range of producers. Sometimes there are no producers. Sometimes there are several, all offering something slightly different from one another.

That, you might notice, is different mode of social organization than, say, making everyone in a given neighborhood pay for a school, whether they use that service or not. The first one is based on freedom of choice; the second is based on compulsion.

If they really are indistinguishable from one another, ethically and economically, then why don't you BACK THE FARK OFF and let people DECIDE if they want to pay for your crappy government schools?

When people are given the CHOICE, I'll bet you a year's worth of Total Fark that the revenue for the government schools goes DOWN.

The only way you can get people to pay for the mouth-breathing Neanderthal prison guards you call "public school teachers" is with a gun. And you know it, or you wouldn't be pushing so hard for it, or trying even harder to rationalize the inherent immorality of it.

draypresct: Yes, there is 'force' in our society. You're forced to pay for roads even if you never leave your house, because the goods and supplies that keep our society running depend on them for transportation. You're forced to pay for education because our society depends on a reasonable level of education. It's simply not a good idea to have illiterates running the power plant that supplies your electricity.


Now that you mention it, government roads (which kill 35,000 people per day ... thanks, government!), government schools, and (while you're at it) government-controlled (aka fascist) electricity production enterprises are all economically inferior, and ethically indefensible.

Force used in defense of person and property is ethical, of course, but using force to coerce people to support the enterprises that you think are socially beneficial is economically and ethically indistinguishable from slavery.

Congratulations, asshole.

draypresct: I'd like to hear what industry you think has better information flow than schools. Schools have more reliable information on their performance coming out than just about any other industry, with (possible) exceptions in the automotive industry and certain very specific aspects of medical care (certainly not all medical care). What industries are you thinking of?


All of them. Starbucks has a better, more reliable system of metrics of actual consumer preference (about every aspect of their products and operation) than any government enterprise. When they don't do things the way people actually prefer, they lose money, immediately.

Government schools have no economic information, because no one who prefers another provider of their services can choose not to pay. As a result, all they have political information, at best.

That's why schools are failing, getting worse, and only change when their results are a political liability.

In contrast, economic accountability happens instantly, which is exactly why Statists hate it.

draypresct: Seems to be working pretty well. is there a nation on Earth that has an educational system you think we should adopt?


The one in my living room.

You are free to disagree, and form your own. The part where I stop cooperating with you is where you expect me to pay for your demonstrably inferior system, and if I refuse, you will have your goons arrest me and take my house, and if I resist that lovely process, you have no problem with them killing me.

I've never had a Starbucks tell me that if I don't buy their product, they'd do all that to me. Instead, they just work to entice me choose to support them voluntarily.

Why do you hate freedom?
2013-01-24 01:06:25 PM  
1 vote:

Persnickety: For iPods and sneakers? Sure. For health care that keeps you alive, safe food that won't kill you, electric power that doesn't poison that air and water and education that doesn't leave you illiterate, not so much. If I get a lousy pizza from a restaurant, my loss is a little money and one bad meal. In contrast we get one and only one chance to educate our children and it's pretty expensive. The cost to society when we do it badly is even more expensive. We can't afford to play games with money and turn our schools into battlegrounds of those that have and those that have-not.


So, in a centralized public school system, if parents and kids get the equivalent of "a lousy pizza" (i.e. a poor education) then what do they do? Move? Suck it up? Parents will drive kids all over the universe to get on better sports teams, but we don't think they'd do the same if they had more educational options?

Persnickety: Yes, yes it is. It is one of the very foundations of our government.


Persnickety: Yes, yes it is. It is one of the very foundations of our government.


So much a part of the very foundation of our government that we didn't have a cabinet level post until 1980? Or do you say that because it was well after 1900 that a majority of kids even had access to a public school... you know, abut 125 years AFTER our nation was formed. Great foundation.

Persnickety: Yes. "Separate but equal" is alive and well in 2013.


I'm not satisfied with that. For what it is worth, I and my immediate family have spend probably a decade in mentor-ship programs with disadvantaged children (BBBS for me, and some local on site mentor programs my parents are involved in). I have not lived it at all. But, in volunteering I have seen it first hand, and it is painful to see the difference in quality of education (facilities, teachers, programs, etc.) that exist. That has only strengthened my opinion that competition would improve the situation, because the public schools cannot get it done. As others have stated, parents will sit and wait for hours to have a shot at a lottery... I also believe that because public education is "something that is provided for me" rather than "something I have to choose myself" that too many leave it up to the schools to do everything.

Persnickety: If anything, it's the smaller charter schools and private schools that are one size fits all. Public education typically provides everything from votech to college prep to culinary arts to shop class.


Private schools differ wildly in teaching philosophies and approach. They also are much more flexible in letting students move forward - and even backward... And regarding the arts and shop class... yes, if your local school is lucky enough to have that. If the program is de-funded, you lose it. If you're paying for the program, and it is successful, then it stays. An individual private or charter school may have fewer options, but they certainly provide parents a broader choice of educational opportunities.

Some private schools are athlete factories. Some focus on classics. Some emphasize technology. Some are whacko fundie schools.

Persnickety: But how is competition going to help? Good schools are mostly a function of good teachers and good students, and to a lesser degree, administrations - and that's where charter schools focus. Are you going to bus the kids all over creation? Teaching pays poorly and there are a limited number of people willing to do it at the level it pays. In urban hellholes, there are even less people willing so you must pay them more. You don't magically create a new crop of better teachers and students just because you shuffle students around and transfer teachers to different buildings. You are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. How about we plug the hole in the boat?


I think if parents had to make the choice, they'd make better ones than a centralized system. We all agree that central planning is bad for shoes, right? (right?) I think many would choose to drive all over (like they do for their precious football practice).

Regarding teacher pay, what is interesting to me, is that private school teachers are willing to take less pay. Ah, but they have better students... well maybe that is part of it, but they have more control, they know that parents are willing to be involved (they're paying!) and they have less administration to deal with.

I'm not rearranging deck chairs. I'm recognizing that we cannot plug the hole on the Titanic. I'd rather cross the Atlantic in 50 medium sized boats that cater to their passengers more directly, than in one "unsinkable" ship that the federal government will create for us. Yes, I'd rather risk 1 of the medium sized boats fail (so long as the passengers have a choice as to which of the remaining boats to board) than have the 1 giant Titanic not reach its destination.
2013-01-24 12:57:35 PM  
1 vote:

Persnickety: o5iiawah: Persnickety: As always in America, you can have all the choice you want as long as you are willing to pay for it. What's unfair is asking me to pay more for your choice or worse, your choice have a direct impact on the quality of my choice. If our goal is to get everyone educated, competition is a lousy model to base that on. Competition implies winners and losers.

Competition might produce winners and losers but in the aggregate, everyone is better off than if everyone is forced into the same glaringly substandard model. You're forgetting that not only are you paying for the public schools but so is a parent who wants to take those dollars and send their kids to a private or charter school. What you want is for people who want private school to pay twice for it since they are already paying for the public schools.

You mean the substandard model that has produced high levels of literacy and scientific achievement in the US? Why do you want to mess with this again - and why should we allow you to play games with your social experiments?

And there is no paying twice. Last I checked, we don't charge tuition for public schools and taxpayers without kids also pay. Public school is like police and fire. Everyone pays because it's in everyone's interest that we have an educated population. Private school is like hiring your own personal security force. Sure, go ahead but that doesn't mean you shouldn't contribute to the cops patrolling the streets.


I simply stated that there is such demand for charter schools that some parents are willing to invest the time to wait in line for a chance to get their kid in. Maybe the solution to longer lines is to open more charter schools and close failing public schools?

But how are more charter schools going to help? Please be specific. In my mind, good schools are mostly good because the teachers and students are good. Shuffling kids around doesn't change the students. Teaching pays crap and there are a limited number of good people willing to do it when good people can easily make more money elsewhere. I understand why private schools can be better: they cherry pick both students and teachers. But without the monetary incentives to attract good teachers or the ability to cherry pick students, convince me we should abandon what has mostly worked in this country.


The comment about not caring was more directed towards the lay parent who chooses not to be involved in their kid's education regardless of whether their kid goes to a private/public or charter school. Meanwhile there are parents who do care and want to take an active role in their child's education but are told by administrators and union reps, "chill, we got this" as they trumpet the 140-year old failing education model

... that has produced one of the most literate and scientifically advanced nations on earth. Gotcha.


Wish the ignorant left would stop charter schools are stealing money bullshiat. Funding to schools and districts is based on student populatiin size. If a school population decreases, so does the funding. Your argument if charter schools based on them decreasing population size is fallacious. If a population naturally decreases due to birth rates would you argue parentless couples are stealing school funds? No. It is a dumb argument. Same with charter schools. There are many school districts that have reformed based on district demographics aging. You dont blame the community for not having kids. The exact dame extension goes to charter schools.

You want to punish parents who actually care about their childs education. How asinine.
2013-01-24 12:47:45 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: Persnickety: As always in America, you can have all the choice you want as long as you are willing to pay for it. What's unfair is asking me to pay more for your choice or worse, your choice have a direct impact on the quality of my choice. If our goal is to get everyone educated, competition is a lousy model to base that on. Competition implies winners and losers.

Competition might produce winners and losers but in the aggregate, everyone is better off than if everyone is forced into the same glaringly substandard model. You're forgetting that not only are you paying for the public schools but so is a parent who wants to take those dollars and send their kids to a private or charter school. What you want is for people who want private school to pay twice for it since they are already paying for the public schools.


You mean the substandard model that has produced high levels of literacy and scientific achievement in the US? Why do you want to mess with this again - and why should we allow you to play games with your social experiments?

And there is no paying twice. Last I checked, we don't charge tuition for public schools and taxpayers without kids also pay. Public school is like police and fire. Everyone pays because it's in everyone's interest that we have an educated population. Private school is like hiring your own personal security force. Sure, go ahead but that doesn't mean you shouldn't contribute to the cops patrolling the streets.


I simply stated that there is such demand for charter schools that some parents are willing to invest the time to wait in line for a chance to get their kid in. Maybe the solution to longer lines is to open more charter schools and close failing public schools?

But how are more charter schools going to help? Please be specific. In my mind, good schools are mostly good because the teachers and students are good. Shuffling kids around doesn't change the students. Teaching pays crap and there are a limited number of good people willing to do it when good people can easily make more money elsewhere. I understand why private schools can be better: they cherry pick both students and teachers. But without the monetary incentives to attract good teachers or the ability to cherry pick students, convince me we should abandon what has mostly worked in this country.


The comment about not caring was more directed towards the lay parent who chooses not to be involved in their kid's education regardless of whether their kid goes to a private/public or charter school. Meanwhile there are parents who do care and want to take an active role in their child's education but are told by administrators and union reps, "chill, we got this" as they trumpet the 140-year old failing education model

... that has produced one of the most literate and scientifically advanced nations on earth. Gotcha.
2013-01-24 12:01:03 PM  
1 vote:

Persnickety: As always in America, you can have all the choice you want as long as you are willing to pay for it. What's unfair is asking me to pay more for your choice or worse, your choice have a direct impact on the quality of my choice. If our goal is to get everyone educated, competition is a lousy model to base that on. Competition implies winners and losers.


Competition might produce winners and losers but in the aggregate, everyone is better off than if everyone is forced into the same glaringly substandard model. You're forgetting that not only are you paying for the public schools but so is a parent who wants to take those dollars and send their kids to a private or charter school. What you want is for people who want private school to pay twice for it since they are already paying for the public schools.

Persnickety: Many parents work multiple jobs and don't have the time or easy transportation to go to a gym and sit around for five hours waiting on a system designed to weed them out. See also: Long voting lines in poor districts. The fact that you automatically dismiss them as not caring is classic blame the victim stuff.


I'm not blaming the victim at all in this instance. Holy hell, get over yourself. I simply stated that there is such demand for charter schools that some parents are willing to invest the time to wait in line for a chance to get their kid in. Maybe the solution to longer lines is to open more charter schools and close failing public schools?

The comment about not caring was more directed towards the lay parent who chooses not to be involved in their kid's education regardless of whether their kid goes to a private/public or charter school. Meanwhile there are parents who do care and want to take an active role in their child's education but are told by administrators and union reps, "chill, we got this" as they trumpet the 140-year old failing education model
2013-01-24 11:27:31 AM  
1 vote:

ph0rk: LarryDan43: BillCo: What a bunch of crap.  it's a known fact that students can only learn from a teacher who belongs to a union.

Exactly. Just look at their pensions, a teacher would have to be a moron to not join a union. Do you want your kid taught by a moron?

Indeed. Given what the average teacher gets paid and how much work they do, I can't understand why anyone is surprised they tend to organize.

Want better relations with a union? Don't treat your workers like shiat - it makes the threat of scabbing/union busting unbelievable. Where are you going to find several thousand workers that will settle for mid 30k and ten hours per day?


According to bls statistics, teachers self report working fewer hours than other industries over a year.

Stop believing the lie of teachers working longer hours than other industries.
2013-01-24 11:22:08 AM  
1 vote:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: profplump: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ignoring a slightly bigger pile of information isn't going to make the problem better

But it's so much easier to let parents compete over the 1 or 2 good schools than to make policy changes that improve education for everyone.

Maybe, and I know this is going out on a limb here, but maybe, we could follow the educational lead of every other industrialized country on the planet and set education policy at the federal level by experts, rather than letting it be controlled by Mary Sue who ran for local school board when she found out they were telling little Susie about evolution. Crazy thought I know.

/yes, I know federally-elected Republicans would just fark it up.
//this is why we can't have nice things.


You mean the common core requirements Obama pushed in the stimulus? The program that dumbed down mathematics requirements? Division to 6th grade algebra to 9th? The federal common core that the only math professor on the board refused to endorse?
2013-01-24 10:11:53 AM  
1 vote:
draypresct:
Oy.

Let's start with the idea that the customers are not paying voluntarily. There are local elections for school board members, votes on school millages, etc. all the time. Just because you don't want to pay for the schools in your area doesn't mean that schools have no volunarily paying customers. Unlike most businesses, who only have to satisfy a small fraction of the population, schools have to satisfy at least 50% to keep the bosses in their seats and the money coming in.


Whoopie-farking-do. Collectivized decision-making.

No one decides what food I buy other than me. There is no vote on it. The decision-making flexibility of a voluntary market is at its maximum because the decision-making unit consists of one person -- him who pays.

You, naturally, have no appreciation for the benefits of individual decision-making because you are a collectivist. You can't develop a product or service that appeals to a sufficiently large pool of voluntary customers, so you resort to force. Typical.

draypresct:
Next, let's talk about your idea that they have no information about what the customers want. There is a great deal of information going both ways. Schools have lots of paying customers, who want a great deal of information about the schools and require the schools to spend time to report it. As a result, schools are more rigorously tested and evaluated than most areas of enterprise. Try getting your local financial institution to report the results of yearly standardized tests of their brokers' financial knowledge. The schools have parent-teacher nights where the parents tell the teachers what they want, parents e-mail teachers directly now-a-days with requests, and parents can schedule a meeting with their kids' teachers at just about any time during the school year, and sometimes outside of it. Newspapers publish articles about what the schools should be doing. School boards get elected or defeated based on how well they provide what the voters want. Schools have lots and lots of information about what their customers want, and the customers demand (and get, if they look for it) lots and lots of information about what the school is doing.


No, the information you get in any collectivized, forced-payment system consists of expressions of preferences about what everyone wants everyone else to pay for. You get a lot of blabbity-blab, and no reliable information about actual economic reality.

The only reliable information about what people actually prefer is expressed by what they actually do. Paying for something is an act of commitment. In any voluntary trade, whenever anyone pays for anything, each person must give up what the other person requires, or else he won't trade with you.

Asking people what they want means virtually nothing. What you get are a lot of pie-in-the-sky, wish-lists and fantasy scenarios, with absolutely no grounding in actual economic reality, of what the full measure of their costs and benefits are.

That's the primary attraction of collectivized decision-making, actually, for people like you -- it enables you to avoid reality and remain in a perpetual state of magical thinking.

draypresct:
Classroom innovation stuck in a time warp since the 1800s? Look up the Flynn effect, "The Flynn effect is the substantial and long-sustained increase in intelligence test scores measured in many parts of the world from roughly 1930 to the present day." Teaching methods have changed over time, and they've produced surprising results.


Yeah, surprisingly awful.

Flynn effect = better nutrition. The idea that government schooling can take credit as the cause of a broad-based trend in IQ is ridiculous.
2013-01-24 09:30:23 AM  
1 vote:
The real problems is that the modern day brood is farked up. They all have ADD or farking asbergers or some form of autism and nut allergies. I don't know what the fark is going on, but we should cull the horde and start breeding better children. It's the only way to make a better society of intelligent humans to progress into the future.
2013-01-24 08:47:06 AM  
1 vote:

Shakin_Haitian: All this union hate. Yeah, it's farked up that teachers make 125k, only work 25 hours a week, and have no standards they have to meet, but that's no reason to hate teachers.

Oh wait, that's right, the teachers I know work full time and usually take work home while having to meet all these certifications, all while not even breaking 30k.

You people are farking idiots.


Citation please on teacher household salary versus US household salary. Do it state by state if you like.

Here is some data, I can't speak to the accuracy.

http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/

Keep in mind that when you compare that to median household income, you have to consider that many households with teachers will have 2 incomes, which puts them - most likely - well above the median, even for the lower salary states.
2013-01-24 08:22:26 AM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: Most if not all charter schools pick their schools via lottery and 800 parents are all too happy to sit in a Gym for 5 hours and see if their kid is one of the 34 or so that get their name picked.


So you're saying that the children of parents who are willing to sit in a gym for five hours on the mere possibly of their child getting into a specialty school are going to have the same home support as those with parents who can't be bothered? If the lottery were from the entire student population, you might actually have a good point but since it's drawn from a subset of students who obviously have a good support network at home, the charter schools are getting a better subset of students than the public schools, who are now stuck with a even worse population due to the removal of a portion the students who have good parental involvement in their education.
2013-01-24 08:15:55 AM  
1 vote:
Circle the wagons, libtards
2013-01-24 08:07:25 AM  
1 vote:
I don't know about charter schools, but it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than American K-12 public education is not only ridiculously expensive and stinks out loud, and should be blown up and rebuilt from scratch.
2013-01-24 07:48:40 AM  
1 vote:
Some charter schools are good, some are bad. Some public schools are good, some are bad. I know you don't want to hear this, but as a parent, you'll probably have to do some leg work if you want your child to have the best education.
2013-01-24 07:24:33 AM  
1 vote:

Bomb Head Mohammed: AverageAmericanGuy: Successful charter schools scare liberals because they show how non-union schools can do better by their students. Such schools make parents stand up and take notice and demand more money be spent funding charter schools. That money comes from the state education budget, and non-charter public schools lose that funding. Loss of funding means more union (Democrat) teachers out of a job.

It always comes down to money. It's never about the kids, as far as liberals are concerned.

Fully realizing that you're a troll, can you please explain to me why you think it's more important to me, a godless liberal, that some teachers that I've never met stay in employment rather than my children get the best education possible? really. Please explain to me exactly the machinations that your brain goes through to output your little grogan of a grand conspiracy.


Not you, individually, but the Democrat party derives much of its support from organized labor. If charter schools delivered on their promise, and legislators began funneling more money into the program, this would hurt the teachers union and that would hurt incumbent Democrats as the union would find other candidates to support. Not wanting to lose that support means sitting legislators have a strong impetus to find reasons not to support the charter school program.
2013-01-24 07:16:19 AM  
1 vote:
Charter schools have about another 10 years before everyone catches on to the scam.
2013-01-24 07:15:18 AM  
1 vote:
FTA: "A CREDO study on Michigan released this week found that 80 percent of charters perform below the 50th percentile of achievement in reading, and 84 percent perform below that threshold in math."

This observation appears on pages 35 and 36 of the study. As the study itself explains, Michigan public charter schools educate more low-income students, who tend to enter school at an academic disadvantage. It comes as no surprise then that most of them would fall below the state average based on raw test scores.


I think it is funny that when Charter School advocates talk about failing public schools point out inner city schools and the pro public school crowd counters by pointing out that there are other factors in inner cities. Now Charter schools are having the same problem and they're using the same response as public school advocates used.

Bottom line, Charter schools were implemented to solve a problem and they didn't solve it. Now they're just a bunch of corporate interests suckling on the taxpayer teat.
2013-01-24 06:52:26 AM  
1 vote:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Osomatic: I'm sort of torn.  I understand that charter schools can be frickin' horrible, but at the same time my kid was incredibly lucky to get into a local charter school that is frankly awesome - it was actually started by parents, and is not for profit, and does a great job.  I love my charter but I can also see how awful they can be.  It's troublesome. I wonder if there is some way to fix charters rather than just outlaw them entirely.

Look, there are some great charter schools, just like there are some great (insert: public, private, parochial, etc) schools. If you have a child attending a good charter school in an area with bad public schools, I'm sure it's a god-send. But rather than focus our effort on improving charter schools, it makes much more sense to just create real reform for public schools. We don't need more "laboratories of innovation." There are decades of scientific literature addressing how to best teach children that is being systemically ignored. Ignoring a slightly bigger pile of information isn't going to make the problem better.

Charter schools are just ultimately a way for ideologically-driven people to create the sort of system they want rather than the one that most effectively teaches the most kids. Fixing them isn't the answer at all.


That would be great if public schools weren't so busy putting kids into classrooms that represent distractions to learning to the majority of the class. If you can't maintain a teaching pace that keeps the kids interested because you have to focus so much attention to a few kids, you'll lose them all.
2013-01-24 06:48:32 AM  
1 vote:
Is there any endeavor at all where private enterprise doesn't perform circles around the government? Aside from burning million$ greasing its own wheels, that is. The government has elevated that to an art form.
2013-01-24 06:34:49 AM  
1 vote:

profplump: powhound: VOUCHERS are a way to collect taxpayer money and funnel it to private schools.

What you say is 100% true. But vouchers are also a way for poor families to get their children out of whatever terrible public school the state has provided.


Vouchers are a good way for poor families to get their children from a bad public school into some kind of private school if and only if all of the following conditions are met:

The voucher covers enough of the tuition (which they usually don't). Most voucher plans I've seen for South Carolina would knock off ~2 - 3 thousand off bills that reach 5 figures. That'll help someone on a minimum wage job a whole lot.
Private schools actually exist in the poor family's area (good luck if you live out in the rural boonies)
The school has extra seats available (and if they're such a good school, why aren't they already at full capacity?)
The school is willing to accept the child (ever had a discipline problem, learning impaired, or they just don't like you - the fark off)
And the parents can actually get the kid to and from the school without bussing. Which for wage-slave parents (especially those with a long commute to the school, see the boonies point), might be simply impossible.

Vouchers are meant to do one thing and one thing only. To make it slightly less expensive for parents who already have kids in private schools to continue sending their kids to those schools. I remember one article on fark about one of these plans written to apply them only to kids previously in public schools (in Louisiana IIRC). The effect was that the private schools ran classes for the parents on how to register their kid at the public school, pull him out a week later, and use that to get around the restriction.
2013-01-24 06:33:34 AM  
1 vote:
Subby obviously learned reading comprehension from a charter school
2013-01-24 06:31:33 AM  
1 vote:
it was fake, but accurate.

graphics.boston.com
2013-01-24 06:23:35 AM  
1 vote:

fusillade762: A NEWS SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN FROM THE MACKINAC CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Newsletter put out by a conservative think tank. Seems legit.


Original article from an organization NAMED AFTER ARIANNA HUFFINGTON sound legit to you?
2013-01-24 06:13:29 AM  
1 vote:

AverageAmericanGuy: Successful charter schools scare liberals because they show how non-union schools can do better by their students. Such schools make parents stand up and take notice and demand more money be spent funding charter schools. That money comes from the state education budget, and non-charter public schools lose that funding. Loss of funding means more union (Democrat) teachers out of a job.

It always comes down to money. It's never about the kids, as far as liberals are concerned.


That isn't an argument, and doesn't address the problems associated with charter schools.
The main problem with them is that they only "work" by filtering out the ineducable students that the public schools are forced to take. This is a serious crticism, and "Liberals don't like them because blah, blah, blah" doesn't answer that criticism - or any other.
Liberals like breathing - don't you think you should consider stopping the practice, since those damn Liberals like it so much?
2013-01-24 05:53:03 AM  
1 vote:
AverageAmericanGuy: Successful charter schools scare liberals because they show how non-union schools can do better by their students. Such schools make parents stand up and take notice and demand more money be spent funding charter schools. That money comes from the state education budget, and non-charter public schools lose that funding. Loss of funding means more union (Democrat) teachers out of a job.

It always comes down to money. It's never about the kids, as far as liberals are concerned.

Fully realizing that you're a troll, can you please explain to me why you think it's more important to me, a godless liberal, that some teachers that I've never met stay in employment rather than my children get the best education possible? really. Please explain to me exactly the machinations that your brain goes through to output your little grogan of a grand conspiracy.
2013-01-24 05:51:37 AM  
1 vote:

ghare: while people making $250k are just barely scraping by, and desperately need their taxes lowered.


My sister has told me this with a straight face,her and her husband make over 250k a year,while I was sitting there thinking about how my mom,my fiance and me get by on under 17k a year. She was also living with us for free while buying tons of bullshiat and electronics online constantly. It still pisses me off.
2013-01-24 05:47:14 AM  
1 vote:
Oh yeah -- forgot to ad that stupdieville is awash in a gang rape football team that has the sheriff - county prosecutor and other high profile types not wanting to (Hurt their Children ) theres of coarse)
2013-01-24 05:31:42 AM  
1 vote:
So, this proves beyond a doubt we have been all 100% wrong all these years.
For the sake of the children we should all completely throw in the towel on public education and let the fundies, the money worshipers and any other group with a social agenda take over. because they are so much more "efficient" at it.

See how well we do with a bunch of elementary and secondary versions of "Bob Jones" and "Liberty Colleges".
2013-01-24 05:00:29 AM  
1 vote:

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ignoring a slightly bigger pile of information isn't going to make the problem better


But it's so much easier to let parents compete over the 1 or 2 good schools than to make policy changes that improve education for everyone.
2013-01-24 04:37:20 AM  
1 vote:
I doubt that many of you have actually taught, let alone taught at regular public schools, charter schools, as well as credit recovery schools. I have, although my experience is limited to the dysfunctional state of Utah.

In general, charter schools here are schools of "last resort". Kids who get tossed from their regular public school seek out charter schools. While under the guidance of state regulations, extra money is profit for the founder/owner.

dnrtfa, but charter schools serve a purpose. They provide a chance for students to actually excel in a place that has a specific program that they are interested in. For example, the charter school I taught at had a specific focus on film. The students (at least 30%) were primarily interested in filmography. Charter schools fill voids that public schools do not.

Charter schools must follow most state regulations regarding teacher accreditation, state testing and such (with exceptions), but do provide specific opportunities that some students take advantage of in a good way.

Unfortunately, the majority of students take advantage of the system in the sense that discipline is nearly non-existent (each kid represents whatever state $ amount they are worth - here it is around $2600ish). Again, any extra money goes straight to the person running the damn place. There is not an incentive to toss kids to the curb....keeping in mind that a majority of the kids are there as a place of last resort.

If you are a parent, do your research. Visit, sit in on classes. Some charter schools may be absolute meccas of opportunity. Others, maybe not so much.
2013-01-24 04:28:35 AM  
1 vote:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Charter schools and vouchers are proof that education works great when you get to hand pick your students or tell the retarded kids to eat sh**.

/I'm aware that some charter schools produce fantastic results and mostly attribute the lack of derptastic school boards and long term fixed asset costs (like athletic facilities) to success
//I live in a state that does it wrong, hence the bias
///Slashies longer than actual comment!


That was sort of my interpretation of things from a lot of different sources.It would be nice if everyone could get a decent education.
2013-01-24 04:01:22 AM  
1 vote:
As everyone should already know.

Lies
Damn Lies
Statistics

What don't you understand, subby?
2013-01-24 03:24:34 AM  
1 vote:
I'm sort of torn.  I understand that charter schools can be frickin' horrible, but at the same time my kid was incredibly lucky to get into a local charter school that is frankly awesome - it was actually started by parents, and is not for profit, and does a great job.  I love my charter but I can also see how awful they can be.  It's troublesome. I wonder if there is some way to fix charters rather than just outlaw them entirely.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report