3 ms·

No, the point is that when you make a comparison as unfair as this one, you're doing something unjust. It also marks you as a person who is conspicuously disho

by alexqgb 13y ago

No, the point is that when you make a comparison as unfair as this one, you're doing something unjust. It also marks you as a person who is conspicuously dishonest. Seriously, saying it isn't "perfectly"" apples to apples is a gross mischaracterization. And yes, that's a very real form of dishonesty. None of this is to say that anything about public schools, from their founding principles to their day to day administration, is above criticism. That's not the case. But slandering them by way of inappropriate comparisons - then adding to the dishonesty by downplaying just how inappropriate that comparison really is - is wrong.

stevesearer 13y ago
I said that it wasn't a perfect comparison - "isn't perfectly apples to apples" - because having been a teacher, I understand how important involved parents are for students and I didn't want to minimize that fact. But saying "apples and oranges" makes it sound like we're talking about elite private schools and urban public schools. We're not. We're talking about schools that are both publicly funded, but have different mandates in how they run their particular institutions. My point is that if charter schools are a legitimate way to better serve one segment of the population, it seems foolish to discount them just because of the types of people that go to them. We should be striving to give all students the best possible opportunity for success, not hampering them on purpose by making them attend schools that don't meet their needs.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Sorry, but that's not going to fly. Spinning an already misleading comparison is dishonest, full stop. And saying you were "concerned" that an accurate analogy "makes it sound like we're talking about elite private schools and urban public schools" is even more ridiculous when we are very explicitly talking about the difference between involved and uninvolved parents. Moreover, if you were truly "concerned" about being misunderstood in this fashion, there's an honest way of handling that - which is saying so in your post. After, all there's no character limit on HN. You're free to be as clear as you need to be. If you want to argue that charters are better because they can select better students AND they're free to operate in ways that have proven beneficial, then by all means do so. Indeed it would be fascinating to hear about approaches that produce clear benefit regardless of the quality of the students. But that's a much tougher case to make. Indeed, the most famous example - that of Geoffrey Canada in Harlem - reveals how even the freest, best endowed schools struggle to educate people well enough to break the cycle of poverty. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pa...
  - stevesearer 13y ago
    I view the different types of schools (Charter, Public, Private, Homeschool) as being types of apples (Granny Smith, Fuji, Pink Lady). They are all varieties of schools/apples, but each has different qualities that make them unique. Within those parameters, making a comparison between a Charter School and a Public School is apples to apples - and is a valid comparison to make. It is also completely valid to make what I will call "Granny Smith to Granny Smith comparisons" between different schools of the same variety. My original point was just to state that Charter Schools might better serve students who have more involved parents - and that I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. And now I'm hungry for apples.

by alexqgb 13y ago

stevesearer 13y ago

I said that it wasn't a perfect comparison - "isn't perfectly apples to apples" - because having been a teacher, I understand how important involved parents are for students and I didn't want to minimize that fact. But saying "apples and oranges" makes it sound like we're talking about elite private schools and urban public schools. We're not. We're talking about schools that are both publicly funded, but have different mandates in how they run their particular institutions. My point is that if charter schools are a legitimate way to better serve one segment of the population, it seems foolish to discount them just because of the types of people that go to them. We should be striving to give all students the best possible opportunity for success, not hampering them on purpose by making them attend schools that don't meet their needs.

alexqgb 13y ago
Sorry, but that's not going to fly. Spinning an already misleading comparison is dishonest, full stop. And saying you were "concerned" that an accurate analogy "makes it sound like we're talking about elite private schools and urban public schools" is even more ridiculous when we are very explicitly talking about the difference between involved and uninvolved parents. Moreover, if you were truly "concerned" about being misunderstood in this fashion, there's an honest way of handling that - which is saying so in your post. After, all there's no character limit on HN. You're free to be as clear as you need to be. If you want to argue that charters are better because they can select better students AND they're free to operate in ways that have proven beneficial, then by all means do so. Indeed it would be fascinating to hear about approaches that produce clear benefit regardless of the quality of the students. But that's a much tougher case to make. Indeed, the most famous example - that of Geoffrey Canada in Harlem - reveals how even the freest, best endowed schools struggle to educate people well enough to break the cycle of poverty. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/education/13harlem.html?pa...
- stevesearer 13y ago
  I view the different types of schools (Charter, Public, Private, Homeschool) as being types of apples (Granny Smith, Fuji, Pink Lady). They are all varieties of schools/apples, but each has different qualities that make them unique. Within those parameters, making a comparison between a Charter School and a Public School is apples to apples - and is a valid comparison to make. It is also completely valid to make what I will call "Granny Smith to Granny Smith comparisons" between different schools of the same variety. My original point was just to state that Charter Schools might better serve students who have more involved parents - and that I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. And now I'm hungry for apples.