Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9laa2n wrote
Reply to comment by WickhamAkimbo in Parents fume over Governor Hochul’s charter school expansion proposal | amNewYork by barweis
> I support charter schools only to the extent that they allow parents to pressure and force public education officials to acknowledge this problem and actually address it by removing violent and disruptive students from the population of students that are already motivated to learn.
But if they charters don’t take them, where are they going to go? Federal law requires minors to go to school.
This seems like a problem that would fix itself if we, y’know, invested in public schools.
> Yes, you are considerably out of touch with reality on nearly every topic you give your opinion for in this sub.
Lmao nice ad hominem. Really shows you people are scraping the bottom of the barrel argumentatively.
> Yes, they are
[citation needed]
> Throwing money at kids disruptive, antisocial, or violent kids in the middle of the general population of students doesn't magically fix behavioral problems. They need much more direct interventions with much smaller class sizes and, likely, remedial instruction. Fixing those behavioral problems takes time and cannot be done in a normal classroom without being massively disruptive.
Did you.. not read what I put down? I literally said we could do that in the public school system. You might wanna get your eyes checked, buddy.
> Good luck with your hand-wavy ideas.
You literally suggested the same thing, so speak for yourself, Mr accidental progressive policy.
WickhamAkimbo t1_j9loah7 wrote
>Did you.. not read what I put down? I literally said we could do that in the public school system. You might wanna get your eyes checked, buddy.
No, you said we could throw a lot of funding at public schools without giving any further details and don't seem to support removing disruptive students from regular classes on the theory that the money will just *waves hands* solve things.
You've also made claims elsewhere that per-pupil spending in NYC is expected to be high because... the city is big. You don't seem to understand that spending efficiency isn't supposed to plummet as you scale the system up. I question if you have basic economic literacy.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9m96nk wrote
> No, you said we could throw a lot of funding at public schools without giving any further details
I literally gave further details right after that. So you really are that blind.
> You've also made claims elsewhere that per-pupil spending in NYC is expected to be high because... the city is big. You don't seem to understand that spending efficiency isn't supposed to plummet as you scale the system up.
That’s exactly how it happens, though, especially in a student body as big as it is.
KaiDaiz t1_j9mddz3 wrote
> That’s exactly how it happens, though, especially in a student body as big as it is.
Nope. Look at the other large school systems in USA. LA also a HCOL area has 2/3 # of students we have but their school budget is 1/2 ours. If all things being equal and accounting for size, you expect LA school budget be 2/3 of our budget but it isn't. In fact its cheaper. Chicago 1/3 our student # but 1/4 of our school budget.
That's raw numbers. If we look at % of the education line item cost in their budgets, our 40% figures exceeds them if we really want to extrapolate for size.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_j9mdoa0 wrote
Except yup. Both of those cities have a massive amount of suburban sprawl, so the situations aren’t comparable.
EzNotReal t1_j9nhued wrote
You accused him of having no argument for using an ad-hominem… when he used the exact same ad hominem you did in your previous comment? And then littering the rest of your comment with even more ad hominems? How are you a real person?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments