• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

You don't think Republicans would be in favor of a shut it all down and replace it with charters approach? While they are generally incompetent in most things, that does seem to be their intent.
 
That's much different than providing a high quality education for every student.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz;2190555[B said:
]You don't think Republicans would be in favor of a shut it all down and replace it with charters approach? [/B] While they are generally incompetent in most things, that does seem to be their intent.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. They just wouldn't be in favor of paying enough to allow those charters to deliver high quality education or demanding that those charters deliver high quality education.
 
RChildress107 said:
Of course they would. They just wouldn't be in favor of paying enough to allow those charters to deliver high quality education or demanding that those charters deliver high quality education.
Click to expand...

How do you know what it would cost to deliver a high quality education? There is no possible way to use the current system as a benchmark.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
How do you know what it would cost to deliver a high quality education? There is no possible way to use the current system as a benchmark.
Click to expand...

You don't know. So smaller budgets shouldn't be mandated.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I mean, the charter school is kind of that proposal. I know #anecdotes, but the one my kid is going to is >60% black and >80% minority. There are two other white kids in his class. From meeting the other parents I would guess most of them are low to middle income, but they are all super excited about their child's education.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I am supporter of charter schools if done right (i.e., with a curriculum based on sound educational science, not some religious quackery, with appropriate oversight from the state, and where transportation and meals are provided so all income levels can access them). I think they can be a good way to turn around certain schools and a good laboratory for improving education overall.

The reason I quote your post is to point out something important that is represented by the bolded portion. When there is a mixed public/charter school system where kids and their parents have to apply to be in the charter schools, or opt into them, or enter into a lottery, or whatever, that automatically selects for the kids who have the most engaged families who care about their kids' education. Conversely, the kids whose parents don't give a crap about their education will show up on the first day of school at their neighborhood school and drop off their kid without a thought to even go through the normal school registration process (saw this happen first hand at our neighborhood school). Naturally, kids whose parents suck (as 2&2 would say) are not going to be as likely to succeed in school as kids whose parents don't suck. This is a built-in bias that has to be acknowledged when comparing relative performance of charter schools to public schools in mixed systems.

If we're going to reach the kids whose parents suck, we have to get funding to surround these kids with social services, health care, food, mental health services, and so forth so they have a chance at success. I am agnostic about whether this is done in a charter school or a traditional public school, but I don't believe it can be done by slashing budgets and forcing local school districts to cut their ancillary staff to the bone so they can have barely enough teachers to staff the classrooms.
 
The government (state/local/federal/whatever) is not their parents. Your objectives basically make the school system a substitute parent, which it is not designed to do, nor should it have to do. This is typical lowest common denominator thinking. Don't hamstring those who want to help their kids because some other people don't care about their kids.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The government (state/local/federal/whatever) is not their parents. Your objectives basically make the school system a substitute parent, which it is not designed to do, nor should it have to do.
Click to expand...

So then why use taxpayer money to educate kids who are doomed because their parents suck?

And why is it untenable for the school system to be a substitute parent yet it is preferable for the juvenile justice system then the prison system to be a substitute parents?
 
Last edited:
We've already privatized the prison system and health care, of course the schools are next. Capitalism is the silver bullet, when you want to improve something you just run it like a business.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The government (state/local/federal/whatever) is not their parents. Your objectives basically make the school system a substitute parent, which it is not designed to do, nor should it have to do. This is typical lowest common denominator thinking. Don't hamstring those who want to help their kids because some other people don't care about their kids.
Click to expand...
This is a great example of Conservative honesty. It's refreshing to hear.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The government (state/local/federal/whatever) is not their parents. Your objectives basically make the school system a substitute parent, which it is not designed to do, nor should it have to do. This is typical lowest common denominator thinking. Don't hamstring those who want to help their kids because some other people don't care about their kids.
Click to expand...

So those kids are just fucked?
 
PhDeac said:
So then why use taxpayer money to educate kids who are doomed because their parents suck?

And why is it untenable for the school system to be a substitute parent yet it is preferable for the juvenile justice system then the prison system to be a substitute parents?
Click to expand...

I don't think that is the goal of either of those systems either.
 
Thanks for the response.

So what is the goal?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
The government (state/local/federal/whatever) is not their parents. Your objectives basically make the school system a substitute parent, which it is not designed to do, nor should it have to do. This is typical lowest common denominator thinking. Don't hamstring those who want to help their kids because some other people don't care about their kids.
Click to expand...

That's essentially the opposition to school choice. Closing gaps prioritized over achievement. Choice would be nice, but Dems don't believe the LCD can be trusted to be involved in choices about their kids education, so nobody gets a choice. Because equality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top