“…is a commitment to curb public funding for Charter Schools”
This can’t happen fast enough!
“…is a commitment to curb public funding for Charter Schools”
This can’t happen fast enough!
As a survivor of Catholic Schools in the 60’s and 70’s, I couldn’t agree more!
But when the natural state of man is faith in Gob, doesn’t that mean your secular/humanist Government Schools are actually the ones indoctrinating?!!?!
/s
I live in a state with a pretty good definition of charter schools similar to what you describe. It also offered union teachers higher starting wages. My kids went to one. Even with every other great thing going for it, it was still a negative for the local public schools (and an unfair comparison). Why?
It was absolutely a great thing for my kids. I also see, in no uncertain terms, that it was not the best thing for the school system.
Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing.
The bias toward higher performing kids / engaged families is definitely a thing here too. Actually, there are two broad self-selected categories here:
That second category I believe is because of the incredibly kind and inclusive environment fostered there. Lots of kids who definitely wouldn’t thrive (maybe not survive) a typical high school flock here. That fact is reflected in the fact it’s the best high school in the state, but only manages an 83% graduation rate (vs 97% for the nearby 4th ranked “normal” public high school).
I wish him luck in this. As unpopular as it was, busing improved communities.
I’m curious if Sanders’ plan has a way of dealing with segregating schools by creating new white cities and public school districts. If not, this might become more common:
What I would prefer, actually, would be a complete overhaul of the public education system that finally moved away from the late 19th/20th century view of education that seeks to systematize children into the industrial economy, and instead sought to create spaces where education is a joy for all, where it’s easier to individualize to the needs of students, where teachers are trusted to do what’s best for their kids, where learning is prized over rote memorization. We have plenty of models to do that (Montessori, Waldorf, unschooling, etc), and we have models of doing more creative school initiatives on a large scale, such as in places like Finland:
The only thing charter schools have really done is give people already advantaged an advantage. It’s the case that in some specific examples, it has worked, but the reality is, we can’t solve this piecemeal and expect everyone, especially the people losing the most from the problems of our public education system, to benefit. We’re gonna have to go federal to fix the problems facing those in public education. I’d say the first place to start might be paying teachers better and freeing them up from strictures such as with common core. Stopping teaching to tests instead of education would also be a step in the right direction.
You raise a good point, here. We didn’t have the kids stick around to the end of the program, primarily because we wanted them to get at least 2 years transition in a public middle school before going to the very large public high school. The charter school was wonderful for young kids because it was such an educational Disneyland. However, it did not prepare them socially for the harsher reality of even a suburban “nice” high school.
This, Bigtime™.
I do see a place for fully public charter schools in that transition, but mainly as laboratories for developing the necessary new curricula and structures we need to make the transition.
True, but we could also look to successful private school models and models of what works in other countries, too. Much of this is not really reinventing the wheel, but just finding the right set to put on the school bus!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.