• 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!

"Change has Come to N.C."

Does that article mention the International Baccalaureate system? I've never seen any findings, but I've always heard that system creates much higher test scores and college attendance rates.
 
No. It's just about charter schools in general. IB programs are found in publics as well. They're growing. IB programs recruit the best and brightest students. The question is if the programs benefit these students above and beyond what they'd do just being talented students taking AP classes. IB students have a separate curriculum, but many take the same AP classes that non-IB students take.

A good google search should get you some good research about IB programs.
 
I think that a blanket statement of "a lot of charter schools don't perform as well as public schools", may be a misnomer, because those schools accept a different group of kids. The only reason that public Magnet schools stay above water, testing wise, is by recruiting high performers with specialized programs, that general schools can't provide.

I agree that there should definitely be standards in place, for reading levels, mathematical ability, etc., but it's unreasonable to expect all students everywhere to perform the same, because schools can't make up for the vast differences in students home lives. Standardized testing only recognizes a problem, and it's should be up to individual communities to solve those problems.
 
Last edited:
Some charter schools accept a different group of kids. Not all.

Standards should be about what is taught, not necessarily what is learned. But things have to be in place to help parents support students as well.
 
PhDeac said:
Some charter schools accept a different group of kids. Not all.

Standards should be about what is taught, not necessarily what is learned. But things have to be in place to help parents support students as well.
Click to expand...

Agree about the taught vs. learned, it's just damned hard to differentiate the two. The only experience I have with Charter schools are ones which developed because of community and parent support. For the article examples from other states, I don't really understand the point of creating a non-profit school system, if educational standards aren't being implemented. Why start something if you don't give a shit about it, right? Are those systems just failing because the funding isn't being spent correctly?
 
PhDeac said:
Some charter schools accept a different group of kids. Not all.

Standards should be about what is taught, not necessarily what is learned. But things have to be in place to help parents support students as well.
Click to expand...

That way, the union workers in the classroom are never held accountable. The schools might continue to fail, but at least we'll hold on to the consumptive bureaucracy that keeps us in power, amirte?

"Standards should....not necessarily [be measured by] what is learned."
:rulz:
 
jhmd2000 said:
That way, the union workers in the classroom are never held accountable. The schools might continue to fail, but at least we'll hold on to the consumptive bureaucracy that keeps us in power, amirte?

"Standards should....not necessarily [be measured by] what is learned."
:rulz:
Click to expand...

How would the "union workers" not be held accountable for doing their jobs if they're held accountable for doing their jobs.

The current system rewards teachers for having good students, not for teaching.
 
jhmd2000 said:
That way, the union workers in the classroom are never held accountable. The schools might continue to fail, but at least we'll hold on to the consumptive bureaucracy that keeps us in power, amirte?

"Standards should....not necessarily [be measured by] what is learned."
:rulz:
Click to expand...

Maybe you've heard the phrase about leading the horse to water. PH never said that teachers shouldn't be held accountable; but they aren't responsible for the aptitude of their students.

Also, the thread has so far been concise and on point, please don't turn it into some right-left bullshit, there are enough of those threads already.
 
There should incentives for teachers to teach in poorer neighborhoods.

If we got rid of some odf trhe middle management that money coudl be restructured to incentivize good teachers and schools.

Teaching to tests is a horrible idea.
 
RJKarl said:
There should incentives for teachers to teach in poorer neighborhoods.

If we got rid of some odf trhe middle management that money coudl be restructured to incentivize good teachers and schools.

Teaching to tests is a horrible idea.
Click to expand...

There are incentives for teachers to teach in poorer areas, but wealthy parents and school districts keep upping the ante. "Middle management" keeps teachers accountable. Teaching to tests is a horrible idea, but those tests are the way that we ensure all students are being taught the same thing, to keep up with the Chinese Jones's, if you will. As students from low SES areas are behind already, their teachers have no choice but to "teach to the test", or else the kids will fail their tests, the teacher will be fired, and the school will lose money.
 
Plus it's pretty hard to offer enough incentives to get teachers to have to walk through a metal detector to get to class. When they installed them at the school my fiancee had her first job at, it was time to leave.
 
I love to hear the liberals who send their children to rich, private schools (Sidwell friends, etc.) fight to keep other families from having the same opportunities.
 
At least Jimmy Carter walked the walk, and sent his daughter to the POS public school in town.
 
deac85 said:
I love to hear the liberals who send their children to rich, private schools (Sidwell friends, etc.) fight to keep other families from having the same opportunities.
Click to expand...

If you're still referring to the thread topic, Public charter schools generally aren't anything like rich private schools or academies. The knock against charter schools is that they are federally funded, yet aren't accountable to the same educational oversight that public schools are, so often they underperform, or don't publically report their performance at all. When charter schools have waiting lists, it's because the school is so small. As a public school, they don't have tuition, like privates, and aren't allowed to be discriminating in who attends, like private schools, unless it's by living address.
 
Last edited:
deac85 said:
I love to hear the liberals who send their children to rich, private schools (Sidwell friends, etc.) fight to keep other families from having the same opportunities.
Click to expand...

Who's keeping rich people from sending their kids to private schools?

Stop spouting BS and stay on topic.
 
Actually, if we could get past throwing personality bombs, this thread pretty much addresses the real issues, advantages and disadvantages of charter schools.

If you don't have to take the riff-raff of American society, that public schools are legally required to take, any good school ought to be able to provide a meaningfully better quality education. We used to call those private schools.

The effect, of course, of "public" charter schools is to harm the public schools in several regards, including financially when we use public dollars to fund what used to be private schools.

Thoughtful people of integrity can have different opinions philosophically as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
 
deac85 said:
I love to hear the liberals who send their children to rich, private schools (Sidwell friends, etc.) fight to keep other families from having the same opportunities.
Click to expand...

So, we should be paying to send kids who can't afford it to private schools, but shouldn't be paying for health care for people who can't afford it?
 
1976Deac said:
Actually, if we could get past throwing personality bombs, this thread pretty much addresses the real issues, advantages and disadvantages of charter schools.

If you don't have to take the riff-raff of American society, that public schools are legally required to take, any good school ought to be able to provide a meaningfully better quality education. We used to call those private schools.

The effect, of course, of "public" charter schools is to harm the public schools in several regards, including financially when we use public dollars to fund what used to be private schools.

Thoughtful people of integrity can have different opinions philosophically as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that public schools aren't getting the job done with the "riff raff" of society, and haven't for a long time, if ever. Even as more and more people are going to college, the test score gap between the "haves and have not's" is staying the same or widening. Why not try something different?
 
bym051d said:
So, we should be paying to send some kids who can't afford it to private schools, but shouldn't be paying for health care for people who can't afford it?
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top