3 ms·

I don't necessarily disagree with much you wrote, but this piece about corporate charter schools, Alas, free market means monopoly, not more parental choice.

I don't necessarily disagree with much you wrote, but this piece about corporate charter schools, Alas, free market means monopoly, not more parental choice. seems like it came out of nowhere. Since charter schools entered my area, my kids have gone from two choices, the local high school and a gifted program for engineering students at a local college, to many choices, includes a performing arts school, a science and engineering school for the "non-gifted" and many others. As a parent, I have concerns about how charter schools impact the local school budgets, but monopoly is the exact opposite of the word I'd use. So I'm curious about what logic brought you to that statement. Your comment was well thought out, so I don't think you are just pulling statements out of nowhere.

specialist 14y ago
Thanks. Yea, that was quite the leap. I see privatization equated with competitiveness all the time. (As those the bidding process isn't an insider rigged game, but that's whole 'nother issue.) I'm pleased that charter school led to greater diversity and choice in your district. Like they say, YMMV. In the reports I've read, charter schools have been selectively admitting students, cherry picking, excluding the low potential, aptitude students. Reinforcing inequity. Whereas public schools have to take all students. Different rules, same scoring system. Very unfair. In my district, we've had short-lived "magnet" programs and schools. They're hugely popular with students and parents. Teachers seem like them too. District administrators hate them. Non standard. Must be closed down. Taylorism redux. Two of our low income high schools have hugely popular magnet programs. My friends that teach at those schools say that it creates a class (caste) system, like two schools in one. The smart, rich, mostly white students in the gifted programs. The rest in the remedial programs. The two groups rarely commingle. (I used to volunteer in the classroom, I've seen this firsthand.) I find that so weird. So much wasted potential. Whatever the current situation, there's huge money being poured into our local pro-charter school campaigns. So whereas our district foolish tried to culled diversity, maybe we'll eventually get it with new charter schools. That'd be ironic. Thanks for replying.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  ...hugely popular magnet programs...creates a class (caste) system, like two schools in one. The smart, rich, mostly white students in the gifted programs. The rest in the remedial programs...So much wasted potential. How so? It sounds as if the students capable of handling high level work are receiving it. Similarly, the students needing remedial help are also receiving it. Would it be better if students who can't do long division were dropped in a calculus class, or students who are capable of doing calculus were bored re-learning long division? What is the potential you believe is wasted?
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  The application process is one of those interesting ones. I completely agree that having a different ruleset but same grading process is completely wrong, but I think that says more about having involvement from too high of a governmental level. Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Make progression based on competency (at least for the core curricula), so if you are highly competent in math, you may be with students several years older than you but if your writing stinks, you may be with younger kids. Instead of trying to force kids into a mold that very few fit comfortably in, let them grow in their own ways. I would love to have my kids attend a school like that. My daughter, who is a gifted writer and artist but struggles non-stop with math (and there are physiological reasons for that) would be able to be comfortable in school and, as a result, better able to focus on her strengths instead of trying to shore up weaknesses that only matter for testing programs. If the charter system allows more experimentation, then that alone justifies its existence; but the transition of more than 100 years of "prepare them for the factory" type of education to "prepare them for knowledge work" will not painful, especially since we still need some of the "prepare them for the factory" and many more "prepare them for a trade".
  - specialist 14y ago
    Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Agreed. I've been chewing on two ideas. Assess student achievement with actual achievements. Just like achievement badges in the Boy Scouts. My son is an Eagle Scout. After meeting the minimum requirements, and completing his project, he was able to assemble whatever achievements tickled his fancy. Promotes self direction and working at one's own rate. Have students teach each other, work more collaboratively, grade each other. Versus lectures, rote memorization, and testing. I've experienced this first hand (as the student). Peer pressure and expectations work wonders. Hardest, most rewarding 'A' grade I ever earned. (I was otherwise a terrible student.) Alas, to date, there's very little research on these two reforms. Some places have tried the achievement system, results inconclusive. I haven't looked to see if the peer support system has been tried else where.

specialist 14y ago

Thanks. Yea, that was quite the leap. I see privatization equated with competitiveness all the time. (As those the bidding process isn't an insider rigged game, but that's whole 'nother issue.) I'm pleased that charter school led to greater diversity and choice in your district. Like they say, YMMV. In the reports I've read, charter schools have been selectively admitting students, cherry picking, excluding the low potential, aptitude students. Reinforcing inequity. Whereas public schools have to take all students. Different rules, same scoring system. Very unfair. In my district, we've had short-lived "magnet" programs and schools. They're hugely popular with students and parents. Teachers seem like them too. District administrators hate them. Non standard. Must be closed down. Taylorism redux. Two of our low income high schools have hugely popular magnet programs. My friends that teach at those schools say that it creates a class (caste) system, like two schools in one. The smart, rich, mostly white students in the gifted programs. The rest in the remedial programs. The two groups rarely commingle. (I used to volunteer in the classroom, I've seen this firsthand.) I find that so weird. So much wasted potential. Whatever the current situation, there's huge money being poured into our local pro-charter school campaigns. So whereas our district foolish tried to culled diversity, maybe we'll eventually get it with new charter schools. That'd be ironic. Thanks for replying.

yummyfajitas 14y ago
...hugely popular magnet programs...creates a class (caste) system, like two schools in one. The smart, rich, mostly white students in the gifted programs. The rest in the remedial programs...So much wasted potential. How so? It sounds as if the students capable of handling high level work are receiving it. Similarly, the students needing remedial help are also receiving it. Would it be better if students who can't do long division were dropped in a calculus class, or students who are capable of doing calculus were bored re-learning long division? What is the potential you believe is wasted?
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
The application process is one of those interesting ones. I completely agree that having a different ruleset but same grading process is completely wrong, but I think that says more about having involvement from too high of a governmental level. Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Make progression based on competency (at least for the core curricula), so if you are highly competent in math, you may be with students several years older than you but if your writing stinks, you may be with younger kids. Instead of trying to force kids into a mold that very few fit comfortably in, let them grow in their own ways. I would love to have my kids attend a school like that. My daughter, who is a gifted writer and artist but struggles non-stop with math (and there are physiological reasons for that) would be able to be comfortable in school and, as a result, better able to focus on her strengths instead of trying to shore up weaknesses that only matter for testing programs. If the charter system allows more experimentation, then that alone justifies its existence; but the transition of more than 100 years of "prepare them for the factory" type of education to "prepare them for knowledge work" will not painful, especially since we still need some of the "prepare them for the factory" and many more "prepare them for a trade".
- specialist 14y ago
  Personally, I think our best option would be to do away with the notion of age-based grades. Agreed. I've been chewing on two ideas. Assess student achievement with actual achievements. Just like achievement badges in the Boy Scouts. My son is an Eagle Scout. After meeting the minimum requirements, and completing his project, he was able to assemble whatever achievements tickled his fancy. Promotes self direction and working at one's own rate. Have students teach each other, work more collaboratively, grade each other. Versus lectures, rote memorization, and testing. I've experienced this first hand (as the student). Peer pressure and expectations work wonders. Hardest, most rewarding 'A' grade I ever earned. (I was otherwise a terrible student.) Alas, to date, there's very little research on these two reforms. Some places have tried the achievement system, results inconclusive. I haven't looked to see if the peer support system has been tried else where.