know that education is supremely important for their children;
know that the local public school isn’t given their children the education they believe they deserve; and
have the intellectual, financial, and business acumen, as well as flexible free time to pursue founding a charter school for the better education of their precious children
…are not the vast majority of parents whose children are under-served in their local school system.
The 1% solution doesn’t solve the problem for the 99%.
Yes, you’re completely right - that is what I meant to say - better than the lowest performing. It’s an important point - because charters are only granted in areas where schools are underperforming.
Look, All I said was that the comparison of charter schools to sub-prime mortgages was nonsense. You obviously have a giant axe to grind against charters and I have no interest in debating you on the topic.
Rather than me citing a source for common sense, why don’t you cite me a source of charter schools coming into highly successful school districts as an alternative to popularity and success.
Charter schools, sold as “fixing underperforming areas”, are really just Trojan horse to snipe students from already decent performing districts. Per the article you linked to.
You and I agree 100% on this. But charter school proponents are not suggesting kids should be forced into attending charter schools. It’s a choice. If charter schools are prohibited, the choice is taken away. And as a liberal, I’m pro-choice.
Well, I suppose that’s easier than providing evidence which supports the idea that students and their families should be prohibited from choosing charter schools.
This is an interesting way to disagree with someone.
It’s not really productive (and in this case, inaccurate, as well) to assume that someone who is disagreeing with you is doing so for selfish reasons. I don’t know you, so I wouldn’t assume that you are less concerned with quality education than I am.
Where did I ever say they should be prohibited from that? I’m not saying they’re NECESSARILY a Trojan horse for neoliberal greed. It’s just that in their present form, they are.
Wow. That’s not nice at all. Are you not able to at least be nice with people you disagree with?
When I taught at-risk youth in special ed, I tried to help them understand that being nice to people, respecting people, even when you disagree with them, is essential to understanding and, ultimately, finding solutions to difficult problems.
Please do. Bullshit should be pointed out. So just put forth some solid, scientific, objective evidence that charter schools are “preventing at-risk youth from getting an education.” That’s your assertion. Please provide evidence to support it. Not assertions or predictions, but rather, evidence.
Of course, there is, every day, evidence of public schools doing just that, but it would be silly, mindlessly reactionary to suggest that simply because public schools regularly and predictably fuck up the lives of at-risk students, that public schools are a bad idea. Public schools are a great idea. Schools are a great idea. The more different kinds of schools there are, the better.
There are bad charter schools. There are charter schools with bad teachers and administrators. The same is true for public schools. Neither kind should be eliminated, because most teachers and administrators at most public schools and most charter schools are determined to provide a quality education for their students.
I’m going to go out on a limb and bet that the quality of evidence you’re going to provide (if you find any at all), is going to be on par with the quality of evidence provided by people who think marijuana should be illegal. Those people will also condemn you for not caring about the youth as much as they do. That’s really wrong of them, isn’t it?
