5 ms·
But the point is that if you sent all the under-performing students to the charter schools instead, in order to remove the burden they represent to the gifted s
by tux1968 10y ago
But the point is that if you sent all the under-performing students to the charter schools instead, in order to remove the burden they represent to the gifted students, we would then say.. look.. district schools are outperforming charter schools.
Thus, the results don't show that charter schools have some secret sauce that is unavailable to district schools. What you're saying is, separate the winners from the losers and the winners will do better than they would otherwise.
That's a defensible position perhaps, but it undermines any argument that privately managed schools are somehow inherently better than district schools.
- jessaustin 10y agoAt the very least, this line of thinking seems to imply that charter schools can pick the best students. It hasn't been demonstrated that public schools can do that. The intelligent teenager whose love for knowledge is crushed by authoritarian public school bullshit is a commonplace. Public schools are famously bad at picking (hiring, promoting, retaining) the best teachers as well.
- tux1968 10y agoYes, totally agree with you. It wasn't meant as a prescription but rather as a way to highlight what is actually the significant factor in the purported success of charter schools. And the original post made the point that a big factor in getting good teachers was a positive working environment for them that was engendered by having only motivated and behaved students.
- Jill_the_Pill 10y agoPublic schools have an obligation to educate all students, even the disruptive pains in the neck.