The point I was trying to make is that the presence of delinquent (let's avoid the word 'criminal') elements in school has a negative impact on learning of the entire school population. That is one of the main reasons why so many minority parents who care try to send their kids to charters schools or private schools if they can afford it. I think that this self-selection is the only thing that makes a difference between public and private schools - not just a statistical difference (i.e. selecting kids that would do better anyway) but also real difference, by reducing the negative impact of delinquent elements.
I also think that public schools would fare much better if they could be more selective about who can enroll, e.g. by lowering the compulsory education to 6 or 7 grades, beyond which kids could attend either a high school if they are college bound, a 2-3 year vocational school or job training, or no school at all.
I do not know about the situation in Chicago, but here in the Baltimore/DC area the push for charter schools comes from below, mainly from Blacks. This is unfortunate, but it is also difficult to blame parents for wanting to remove their kids from the negative environment that many public schools have become, especially in urban areas.
Of course, there is more to it, for example political tug-o-war between the State Department of Education dominated by the Republican Nancy Grasmick and the City of Baltimore. Grasmick got appointed and survived Democrat attempts to oust her (thanks to laws aimimg to "depolotiticize" schools, ha ha ha) and is a big force behing standardized testing (to help the kids, of course) which is seen as a vehicle for state taking over Baltimore schools (which do poorly on standardized tests.)
To reiterate, my point is that public schools are probably better than private (if there is any difference at all) but they face a much tougher job, maninly because they cannot select thier students. However, a broader an more important point is that what maters is not schools but kids' attitude toward learning and parental influence.
Wojtek
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM, shrill.polemic <shrill.polemic at gmail.com>wrote:
> Wojtek, this is silly. Do you really think anyone who fairs badly on
> standardized test is a criminal? Please.
>
> My original point was that charter schools in Chicago are allowed to
> select their students. Those who don't do well academically can be
> rejected or kicked out. It's easier to attain high test scores when
> you don't have to work with the students who need the most help. And
> even taking that into account, Chicago charter schools don't tend to
> perform much better than traditional public schools, if at all.
>
> I would argue Daley's push for charter schools in Chicago doesn't have
> much to do with education. Instead it's about enhancing the mayor's
> power. And Arne Duncan's leadership in that process is what won him
> his gig as Sec. of Education.
>
> shrill
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > [WS:} so you think that gang members, drug dealers and violent offenders
> > create a good learning environment in schools?
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 9:52 PM, shrill.polemic <shrill.polemic at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Wha? Students who don't test well are "bad kids"? Rubbish.
> >>
> >> shrill
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > [WS:] But that is the whole point, no? Schools do not "fix" children
> as,
> >> > say, mechanics fix cars. It is children who do the learning, and
> schools
> >> > merely facilitate the process. So if the peer pressure has
> detrimental
> >> > effect on leaning, kicking out "bad kids" will have a positive effect
> on
> >> > learning, no?
> >> >
> >> > I do not understand why there is so much insistence in this country
> that
> >> > everyone must go to school that offers the same curriculum to
> everyone.
> >> >
> >> > Wojtek
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:31 AM, shrill.polemic <
> >> shrill.polemic at gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > For that reason, I am really "on the fence" on this issue. On the
> one
> >> >> hand,
> >> >> > I think that the one-size-fits-all philosophy behind public
> education
> >> >> > sucks, and charter schools do offer an antidote to it. Otoh, I do
> >> >> support
> >> >> > teachers and thier unions, and I think charter schools would be
> very
> >> >> > detrimental to both.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wojtek
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> In Chicago, charter schools represent another successful effort by
> the
> >> >> Daley administration to privatize public resources and bust a strong
> >> >> union.
> >> >>
> >> >> On an optimistic note, 3 Chicago charter schools were recently
> >> >> organized although not by the Chicago Teachers Union -
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/district-299/2009/10/catastrophe-or-opportunity-chicagos-first-unionized-charter-school-contract.html
> >> >>
> >> >> The claims that charter schools offer a better education is
> >> >> questionable to say the least. In Illinois, the easiest way to boost
> >> >> test scores at a charter school is to simply kick out the kids that
> >> >> aren't testing well.
> >> >>
> >> >> shrill
> >> >>
> >> >> ___________________________________
> >> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >>
> >> > ___________________________________
> >> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >> >
> >>
> >> ___________________________________
> >> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>