• 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

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But these are the same regulations that, in your opinion, hinder teachers and are a primary reason why traditional public schools are failing, right? So why do you want to double down on the failure? Failure for everyone is how we measure public school success in today's liberal mind. If everyone gets as shitty an education as our worst schools, then we've achieved our goals and can all go home.
Click to expand...

Public schools as a whole are not failing. Charters are praised by the Right as being successful innovators. Some are, some are not. Innovation happens in public schools as well. The problem is that innovation in public schools is restricted by regulations that the GOP in particular layers on in the the name of accountability while at the same time freeing charters from the same regulations. The challenges that public schools face in educating a very diverse population are immense. You can't stack the deck against them and proceed to call them all losers.

Like our prison system is the default for treating mental illness, public schools are being forced to deal with issues in our society that they were never intended to address. Poverty and violence are colossal impediments to a child's education.

Take tours of Whitaker Elementary and Bolton Elementary in Forsyth County. Tell me which school is more conducive to learning.

With the amount of capital that we have invested in public schools, it is foolish to create a whole new system. Are there significant structural and policy changes that need to occur? Yes, but don't create two sets of standards for political purposes that you know will be a detriment to one group and provides special avenues to success for the other. This will lead to the collapse of the public school system, and it will be a disgrace on this country.

All the rhetoric of either doubling down on failure or choosing charters is a disingenuous false choice. I am for a healthy, vibrant, innovative public school system that provides a high quality education to all students. A lot in this country has to change in the school system, the state and federal governments, and in society for this to be able to happen. Undercutting the public school system with both words and deeds hurts our children and our country.
 
The best way to use charters, in my opinion, is to have them take over failing schools lock stock and barrel and prove they can do better. Like the bill that passed in NC and was discussed for several pages on this thread. The GOP preference, however, is "school choice" which is just sneaky re-segregation. That's setting up a new charter school, often far away from the failing schools and the poor people who attend them, and not providing the free school breakfast and lunch or the transportation to get the poor people to the school. That's not choice, that's intentional exclusion and ghetto-ization of poor people.

Charters have successfully taken over failing schools in New Orleans, NYC and other places and transformed them. That's the model we need to be looking at, not the "school choice" model pushed by the NC GOP and others.
 
But that works under the assumption that the schools are failing, not poor students.

The solution is to deconstruct the education industrial complex and return control to educators instead of business people and politicians. Provide broad standards and let teachers work with parents and students to meet them.
 
PhDeac said:
But that works under the assumption that the schools are failing, not poor students.

The solution is to deconstruct the education industrial complex and return control to educators instead of business people and politicians. Provide broad standards and let teachers work with parents and students to meet them.
Click to expand...

i think the best charters do this. schools serving poor students have serious challenges but there are interventions and policies that work to improve results for those populations. I have posted about them many times on education threads. in many places all the accountability bullshit, funding cuts, unions (not applicable in NC, but very important elsewhere) and a history of futility and lack of leadership prevent those proven policies from being implemented in traditional public schools. the place for charters is to show what can be done if you cut through all that.
 
Let me get this straight, "regulations" that some school funding is meant for busing and lunches, is hindering public school teachers? What? Somebody go check 2&2 to see if he had a stroke.
 
Deacon923 said:
i think the best charters do this. schools serving poor students have serious challenges but there are interventions and policies that work to improve results for those populations. I have posted about them many times on education threads. in many places all the accountability bullshit, funding cuts, unions (not applicable in NC, but very important elsewhere) and a history of futility and lack of leadership prevent those proven policies from being implemented in traditional public schools. the place for charters is to show what can be done if you cut through all that.
Click to expand...

And public schools aren't allowed the freedom and leeway that charters have.
 
WFFaithful said:
Public schools as a whole are not failing. Charters are praised by the Right as being successful innovators. Some are, some are not. Innovation happens in public schools as well. The problem is that innovation in public schools is restricted by regulations that the GOP in particular layers on in the the name of accountability while at the same time freeing charters from the same regulations. The challenges that public schools face in educating a very diverse population are immense. You can't stack the deck against them and proceed to call them all losers.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
And public schools aren't allowed the freedom and leeway that charters have.
Click to expand...

myDeaconmyhand said:
Let me get this straight, "regulations" that some school funding is meant for busing and lunches, is hindering public school teachers? What? Somebody go check 2&2 to see if he had a stroke.
Click to expand...

I thought you guys were on the same side. And this is the crux of the nonsensical nature of this liberal position. If you don't want charters to be "special" by being exempt from certain regulations, then remove the regulations for everyone. If conservatives are against those regulations (which is likely the case given the charter movement), then they wouldn't oppose it. But the liberals won't, because they support the regulations when they actually look at them. So the result is that we get into this liberal LCD theology.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I thought you guys were on the same side. And this is the crux of the nonsensical nature of this liberal position. If you don't want charters to be "special" by being exempt from certain regulations, then remove the regulations for everyone. If conservatives are against those regulations (which is likely the case given the charter movement), then they wouldn't oppose it. But the liberals won't, because they support the regulations when they actually look at them. So the result is that we get into this liberal LCD theology.
Click to expand...

yeah, crazy that different people in one party can have different ideas and opinions
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I thought you guys were on the same side. And this is the crux of the nonsensical nature of this liberal position. If you don't want charters to be "special" by being exempt from certain regulations, then remove the regulations for everyone. If conservatives are against those regulations (which is likely the case given the charter movement), then they wouldn't oppose it. But the liberals won't, because they support the regulations when they actually look at them. So the result is that we get into this liberal LCD theology.
Click to expand...

We are on the same side. You may be as well. The problem is that conservatives aren't against those regulations for public schools. They want more bureaucracy in public schools so they can justify privatizing education.
 
PhDeac said:
We are on the same side. You may be as well. The problem is that conservatives aren't against those regulations for public schools. They want more bureaucracy in public schools so they can justify privatizing education.
Click to expand...
I don't consider school buses and lunches to be "beaurocracy" or "limitations", and I don't think you do either. 2&2 has got us chasing our tails in this stupid discussion.

With exceptions for schools for the disabled, the state shouldn't be funding schools that can't fully serve their community.
 
PhDeac said:
And public schools aren't allowed the freedom and leeway that charters have.
Click to expand...

it's important to recognize the regional differences in that lack of freedom.

In North Carolina and most of the South, there are no teacher's unions. The lack of educational freedom is primarily produced by top-down educational bureaucracy, "accountability" and "assessment" nonsense, and underfunded mandates.

In the Northeast and other places, you have all of that, but you also have teacher's unions which can be very obstructionist. Some of the motivation for charter schools in NYC was not to break free from the educational bureaucracy so much as to get out from under the teacher's unions.

I agree with some of what 2&2 is saying, let's reduce education bureaucracy and let teachers teach. I also believe in spending the money necessary to provide the support services that are so badly needed in high poverty schools. It may be that charters are part of the solution to getting those things done. What is not a solution is "school choice" that defunds support services and further intensifies poverty in some schools by siphoning off the kids whose parents have cars and a modicum of involvement, and leaving behind the poorest who need the most help because their parents are the crappiest.
 
Deacon923 said:
What is not a solution is "school choice" that defunds support services and further intensifies poverty in some schools by siphoning off the kids whose parents have cars and a modicum of involvement, and leaving behind the poorest who need the most help because their parents are the crappiest.
Click to expand...

Brain drain and white flight are the terms. It's self fullfilling, and Republican legislators know that. At least charter school lobbyists know that. Profit free mission charters that open up in poor urban centers actually fulfill their mission of serving the most needy students. The vast,vast majority of charters are not located in inner cities. They are generally suburban and relatively isolated. Those suburban charters are the schools that leech off the community, and further the divide between haves and have nots.
 
I know we've had this debate a hundred times, but why punish the kids whose parents care (many of whom are in generally the same financial situation as those who don't) because some other parents don't care? Yes, I know in an ideal world the school would serve as a substitute parent and fix a lot of the home problems. But in reality, that isn't going to happen, and it certainly isn't going to happen any time soon. So in the meantime while we are waiting for utopia, why would we not let the kids out of the crappy system whose parents want them out of the crappy system. Why would we choose to help none instead of some?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I know we've had this debate a hundred times, but why punish the kids whose parents care (many of whom are in generally the same financial situation as those who don't) because some other parents don't care? Yes, I know in an ideal world the school would serve as a substitute parent and fix a lot of the home problems. But in reality, that isn't going to happen, and it certainly isn't going to happen any time soon. So in the meantime while we are waiting for utopia, why would we not let the kids out of the crappy system whose parents want them out of the crappy system. Why would we choose to help none instead of some?
Click to expand...

Because it's being done with taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer education dollars should at the very least be spent equally on all children, and I would argue should be allocated disproportionately to those with the biggest needs. And before you hone in on the word "equally" in that last sentence, "equally" does not mean "money follows the student" when a large chunk of that money is supposed to be paying for services the student is not receiving and being taken away from children who need those services. The rationale for spending more on the poorest is not only moral, its utilitarian, because lifting kids out of poverty makes them productive members of society and not lifelong drags on the taxpayer.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
http://m.azdailysun.com/news/opinio...5b77-9200-4462f0182004.html?mobile_touch=true

Can't copy text, but the gist is that charter schools are re-segregating the public school system. State governments are bending to the will of involved parents at the expense of school children without parental involvement.
Click to expand...

I mean, isn't that kind of the entire point of representative government? No, not involved parents! We can't let them have any say! Fuck those sons of bitches!
 
Deacon923 said:
Because it's being done with taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer education dollars should at the very least be spent equally on all children, and I would argue should be allocated disproportionately to those with the biggest needs. And before you hone in on the word "equally" in that last sentence, "equally" does not mean "money follows the student" when a large chunk of that money is supposed to be paying for services the student is not receiving and being taken away from children who need those services. The rationale for spending more on the poorest is not only moral, its utilitarian, because lifting kids out of poverty makes them productive members of society and not lifelong drags on the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point; all of the students allocated those funds need those services. The students designated the funds but at the charter schools aren't receiving the services because the money isn't following them. Many of the charter schools want the lunch programs and the bussing, but the money for their kids to eat lunch and get bussed is currently going to a school they don't attend.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
You seem to be missing the point; all of the students allocated those funds need those services. The students designated the funds but at the charter schools aren't receiving the services because the money isn't following them. Many of the charter schools want the lunch programs and the bussing, but the money for their kids to eat lunch and get bussed is currently going to a school they don't attend.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but that was not at all what the NC legislation was proposing. It would just give them the money and let them do whatever they wanted with it. If charters want the same money per pupil as traditional publics, they should be required to spend that money on the same stuff per pupil. Otherwise, again, that simply and predictably leads to economic and racial segregation. And furthermore, I am quite confident in saying that economic and racial segregation is the desired outcome of a great number of people who advocate for these policies.

I am fine with allocating funds for bussing and food to charters, so long as they are required to use it on bussing and food.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I mean, isn't that kind of the entire point of representative government? No, not involved parents! We can't let them have any say! Fuck those sons of bitches!
Click to expand...
Is the point of representative government for representatives to only represent their voters? No, that's not the point at all. Maybe you missed the "at the expense of children with uninvolved parents" part. Should I have made the text bigger on that part?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top