Students in Newark are much more likely to be raised in a single-parent, or otherwise dysfunctional, household.
Regards,
Shodan
So how will putting them in a charter school change that?
You’re kidding, right?
It wouldn’t; you can’t change their backgrounds thru school. What you are trying to change is the outcome, where either you get the same results but at a lower cost, or better results at the same cost.
But the kind of schooling with the better outcome is the one you want to go for. It would make no sense to say “We seem to get better results with schools of type B than schools of type A - therefore, we need to change type B to be more like type A”.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m serious. If public schools in Scarsdale are successful, and public schools in Newark are failing, what are the material differences? Why can’t Newark do what Scarsdale is doing?
If you don’t know, just say so.
Money? The property tax base in Newark as compared to Scarsdale? Just guessing, here…
Shhh, you’re disturbing my trail of bread crumbs…
Suuure, just throw money at schools and they will get all better.
So, if it is not money, what are the differences between successful public schools in Scarsdale, and failing public schools in Newark?
Yet, Scarsdale public schools are successful, and Newark public schools are failing, and it isn’t the money (accordiing to Terr), and it isn’t socio-economic background of the students (according to Shodan). By process of elimination, it must be something else.
The single most important factor to students’ success is parental interest and involvement in their children’s education. Successful charter schools have redefined their task to take into account the lack of basic instruction kids get at home. Some young kids grow up without being exposed to family members that have regular jobs, so things as simple as that escape them.
It would serve you well to read the link Terr provided.
Now, what do YOU think should be done. You haven’t offered a lick of solution yet.
Why is this impossible at public schools?
Did you read the link? That grand 20-year experiment didn’t convince you that “it is not the money”?
To answer your question: the students. If the public schools had a way of kicking out the minority that drag the rest down, life/education would greatly improve for the rest of the students.
Teachers’ unions.
Now, for the 3rd or 4th time, what do YOU propose as a solution?
Thank you. At least you are honest; all the other conservatives are dancing around this inconvenient truth.
Conservatives do not want all children to succeed. Out of sight, out of mind.
By the same token, “Liberals wants the majority of children who could achieve much more to be dragged down by the disruptive, unruly and destructive minority”. True or false?
What a load of bullshit. We’re talking about charter schools in the worst areas. Schools that will help the poorest kids that need it the most. They have been proven to work. But, no, you still don’t like it, for some reason. And what do you offer for a solution? Absolutely nothing.
Does that pretty much cover it?
True, without a doubt. We know we have no alternative; you seem to think the castoffs will disappear into Dickensian workhouses and prisons without consequence to the rest of the world.
Thank you for your honesty. You’d rather drag the majority of the children down and prevent them from having better lives than give up the forced egalitarianism.
False dilemma. I would improve the public schools, and not abandon anybody. Giving up is not an option. Unless you are a conservative.