Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ideological_fatling t1_jdhxhyr wrote

more reaganite Neoliberalism... shifting taxpayer dollars to a private enterprise. No surprises here.

158

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jdidt83 wrote

Pretty much.

Let private enterprise insert itself into anyplace things were being done at cost and extract a percentage to call “profit”, ideally at taxpayers expense.

That’s what health insurance is too by the way… it’s Medicare relabeled with shareholders taking a % as profits for acting as middlemen. More they can deny more profit leftover.

If only there was an entity that didn’t actually need to turn a profit. Something that could just collect what it needs to cover the service and the administrative costs of the process. Something public, auditable and accountable to the people who use it. If only other countries with such a system would share how that works…

46

daking213 t1_jdiieqv wrote

Success Academy is a non-profit, anything it earns from renting to public schools will be reinvested with the goal of improving its educational practices, it won’t just pocket the money

−37

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jdilpok wrote

Non profit doesn’t mean it’s ownership and board don’t make money and can’t have incentives.

Lots of non profits are awful Susan G Komen being a classic example.

US law is pretty lax on non profit status.

42

ELONGATEDSNAIL t1_jdj571u wrote

The NFL

23

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jdj5cmz wrote

Yup. Another famous “nonprofit”.

People don’t realize how little the term really means in the US. It’s a corporate tax structure, nothing more.

Another example is all these “mega churches”.

19

daking213 t1_jdixjno wrote

Non profit inherently means there are no shareholders and therefore no “ownership,” meaning any additional endowment left over is not split amongst the “ownership” in the form of profit as you suggested earlier.

The salaries its board makes are considered “administrative costs” just like the administrative costs needed to cover the salaries of public school boards, and as a result of their non-profit status are public and auditable.

−3

drpvn t1_jdqzr6m wrote

Some real dimwits in this thread.

2

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdiv89o wrote

LOLOLOLOLOL are you serious?

New York State hospitals by law are non profits. NY Presbyterian has a $6 billion endowment.

Non profit doesn't mean "can't earn profit" it means it doesn't have shareholders. The company itself can hold as much as it wants.

19

daking213 t1_jdiwngr wrote

What? If there are no shareholders then nobody gets to keep the profits. Eventually it has to be reinvested, why would a company “hold it” and do absolutely nothing with it?

−6

SolitaryMarmot t1_jdjg1zb wrote

there are tons of ways to extract value from a company that aren't via equity. the regulations for non profits are almost non-existent. some states have their own related to excessive compensation. But generally its a free for all.

10

Neckwrecker t1_jdir29n wrote

>Success Academy is a non-profit, anything it earns from renting to public schools will be reinvested with the goal of improving its educational practices, it won’t just pocket the money

They pocket it via $200K+ exec salaries.

10

ntwrkguy t1_jdj5kjg wrote

Plenty of management in DOE/Tweed make that but student outcomes are 🗑️🔥

1

daking213 t1_jdivyxa wrote

Yeah, on a $4 billion endowment. The vast, vast majority of the endowment goes towards its educational goals

−2

SeeYouSpaceCowboy0 t1_jdiixrd wrote

How guileless are you?

6

daking213 t1_jdijgip wrote

Is there any evidence to believe the alternative? Or is this just a “I don’t like charter schools therefore their founders are criminals” take?

−7

Rottimer t1_jdjuzza wrote

Eva Moskowitz gets paid nearly $1,000,000 each year for running Success Academy. That's pretty dam good for non-profit work.

6

m0ms-spaghetti t1_jdjyspp wrote

Success Academy is gonna get hundreds of thousands in funding for each school from the DOE at the start of each school year, kick out the 10 worst performing students in each class (worst performing meaning just not excelling, not violent or with learning disabilities), send those kids to the local public school and keep the funding. Local public school will then be forced to stretch the funding they got for 600 kids in September to cover 850 kids they now have in November. I’ve seen it happen time and time and time again. Charter schools are bad for communities.

6

ntwrkguy t1_jdisk0j wrote

Public education in NYC has had many, MANY, years of trying to better itself and increase student outcomes. When that shows failure, and the alternative shows progress, do you really blame folks for supporting entities like Success Academy?

Looks like the UFT people are downvoting 🤣

−17

InfringeOrange t1_jdidl6s wrote

This is just foul.

84

Treezus_cris t1_jdkqwgy wrote

Can only blame nyc government, they have no care for public schools or the kids in it

−2

Legal-Suggestion-532 t1_jdn7u9h wrote

Respectfully, I think that’s only half true. I would definitely say that the new administration of New York city wants to siphon a lot of money from different places including in the public school system. But I would say that the previous administration did a lot for students in the way of education, opportunities, and programs.

4

ketzal7 t1_jdielrx wrote

r/nyc whenever public schools ask for funding: 😡

r/nyc when corporations take money from the local government, displace public schools, and then charge those public schools to operate there: 🥰

79

drpvn t1_jdjql20 wrote

https://i.imgur.com/nLPCiwh.jpg

5

ITEACHSPECIALED t1_jdk0p2n wrote

It costs money to educate 1.1 million students.

1

drpvn t1_jdk3ebl wrote

Closer to 900k these days. But yeah, it costs money, about $40,000 per student.

6

FloatingWeight t1_jdkcjs3 wrote

There are private schools that cost less per student than the NYC public schools…

4

kerbherbstreet t1_jdiu43z wrote

The director makes millions on the backs of underserved children. Success academy is nothing but profiteers. Disgusting

69

StockTopic3811 t1_jdkru6l wrote

I worked at a SA school for 3 months - the worst experience ever - the kids are treated terribly with no respect - they literally teach math for hours and hours and mentally and verbally damage K- 5 graders - the tell 5 year olds to blow there mouths so it makes a bubble so they can’t talk in the hallways - in class you get thrown Mardi Gras necklaces when you get the answer right - all kinds of trinkets thrown out like pets ! It’s a negative environment-

12

solo-ran t1_jdk9re4 wrote

Eva makes about 500,000 not millions.

5

TheJellyBean77 t1_jdkcv8b wrote

Welp, in 4 years, that's millions.

4

PaulRomerfan1 t1_jdvv2wp wrote

Most 25 year olds in nyc make 500k, calm down.

1

TheJellyBean77 t1_jdw4tec wrote

I mean, there are some. I wouldn't say most. There's a pot of people here making minimum wage at 25 lol.

2

PaulRomerfan1 t1_jdw5go1 wrote

I make 1.3m and am the poorest of my 20 something friends

1

TheJellyBean77 t1_jdw6opv wrote

Cool story bro, you have time to tell it again?

Do you buy food or coffee in the city? You think the people who sell it to you are making 500k?

You seem pretty dumb to making so much money.

2

PaulRomerfan1 t1_jdw77ew wrote

No, the in-house chefs at work only make like 200k, but I also don't think they could run a large organization.

0

TheJellyBean77 t1_jdw7udn wrote

Lol. So you only eat at the office? I can't tell if you're for real or not at this point. You can't seriously have studied economics and not understand things like average income...

3

mowotlarx t1_jdjd9gf wrote

It would be the best day if NYC public school stopped leasing spaces in our already crowded public schools to Super Eagle Success Leadership Striver Gold Star Elite Academy or whatever the fuck else Charter wanted to camp there. I'm tired of it.

57

ChipsAndLime t1_jdjsivu wrote

Hey let’s not forget their bitter rival, Success Link Charter Children Gold Zone New Project America 🇺🇸, where all teachers are new and they burn out after a two-year contract, leaving the kids perpetually taught by stressed, inexperienced teachers. God bless capitalism.

30

mowotlarx t1_jdkgax4 wrote

>Success Link Charter Children Gold Zone New Project America 🇺🇸

We kid, but I swear to God every charter school has some dumb ass name like this.

16

animetherapies t1_jdinw24 wrote

NYC, the place where capitalists hide as liberals.

51

Independent_Cat9556 t1_jdjbpsh wrote

Liberals are capitalists, tho. This is peak liberalism IMO.

25

animetherapies t1_jdn3y65 wrote

Liberalism should free us from the evils of capitalism that made children work 🤷🏾‍♂️

−1

Independent_Cat9556 t1_jdov2gx wrote

Actually it was militant unionism led by socialists and communists who freed us from capitalist policies such as child labor and well over 40 hour work weeks as well as helped establish minimum wage, UI, etc.

4

Harvinator06 t1_jdrufz0 wrote

Look up the definition of liberalism. It’s a form of political -eco only within a capitalist framework. Liberalism is at the heart of all our government failures.

3

irish_fellow_nyc t1_jdjmipf wrote

Charter schools are making big money for their hedge fund investors as they scoop up real estate, cherry-pick the top students in poor districts and basically privatize public education in New York City.

29

NatLawson t1_jdjitoh wrote

Not only profiteering, charter schools drive the illusion that teaching craft is responsible for an individual student's success.

Really, these cherry picked students are contorted into believing in exclusion of other children as key to their own salvation.

They are taught and trained into existential crises. "The drama of the gifted child." Alice Miller.

These children are hostages to the theory of white supremacy. Only adherents are granted the tax resources paid by their parents.

Charter schools are inherently unequal.

24

doodle77 t1_jdi8oqr wrote

The School Construction Authority spends $X (including property acquisition) to build a 1000 seat school and borrows at Y%. The DOE spends $Z/year on building upkeep.

Success Academy offers to rent a 1000 seat space for the DOE for $A/year on a long-term lease.

If $A < $X * Y% + $Z, this is beneficial for the DOE.

16

tonka737 t1_jdkealj wrote

Shouldn't 'A' be greater than the other side of the equation(?)/expression(?) in order for the DOE to profit?

1

ketzal7 t1_jdi96hg wrote

Crony capitalism at its finest

16

drpvn t1_jdhwvql wrote

Probably should just post the underlying article rather than link to Ravitch’s ridiculous blog.

15

DragonTypePokemon t1_jdjoc75 wrote

Idk Success Academy seems more like a Military Industrial Complex than a school at this point

14

awill316 t1_jdkd02s wrote

I worked for Success Academy for 2 months and it was weird as fuck

11

solo-ran t1_jdkj1cf wrote

More info please?

2

awill316 t1_jdkjps0 wrote

I was recruiting for them and was asking questions with zero acknowledgment or response from managers and after 2 months I came in one day and got a call from MY recruiter saying I need to drop off all my stuff at the front desk and leave. I asked if I was being fired and she said yes and I asked why and she was like “I thought you would know why…” because they hadn’t told her a reason. I guess questions are not allowed!

12

jay5627 t1_jditp8y wrote

Success was promised more space in Queens under DeBlasio and that never came to fruition (that I'm aware of). Took matters into their own hands

7

zamansky t1_jdm0e0c wrote

Don't forget when you account for student attrition, Success Academy schools have an abysmal graduation rate. They pretend it's really high but that's because they kick all the kids out who won't graduate before 12th grade.

7

myrealnameisnotryan t1_jdj8nyc wrote

I agree that this only weakens the future of the DOE. And the DOE has failed many of the areas success academy is in. It’s a complicated problem.

5

wateringtheflowers t1_jdkvguh wrote

Probably going to get downvoted, but I think Success Academy is doing an incredible job providing a valuable alternative for kids in neighborhoods where public schools have already failed multiple generations. Yes, it's different from public schools. It's more strict. It's more traditional. It's more test-oriented. And yes, they have the ability to wean out weaker students from the system, which they really shouldn't do. If parents choose to send their kids to Success Academy, then Success Academy should have to take them. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. That should be a requirement for any Charter school.

But despite all the negative comments about Success Academy, some of which may or may not be true, the one positive thing that makes them better, in my opinion, is that the teachers seem to actually care that students learn. I say that as someone who went through NYC public schools K-12, so I know what it is like.

There is really a very obvious dichotomy here between the relentless parade of negative press and comments about Success Academy, and Success Academy's continued ability to attract more students, open new schools and produce far-above-average standardized test scores.

For those vehemently opposed to Charter schools, I have to ask why would you deny that choice to parents who choose to send their kids there?

2

TheVirtual_Boy t1_jdsinse wrote

The teachers at success academy are abused worse than the kids are

2

jonnycash11 t1_jdj1256 wrote

I believe public schools charge charters rent to use their space as well so this may not be as ridiculous as it sounds.

I would have to see the details—is Success Academy paying from their budget to renovate the buildings and turn them into schools? That would seem fair then.

1

L1LD___ t1_jdsyd0h wrote

It’s the American way

1

kirabaejd t1_jdkqc1w wrote

Good because nyc public schools were avidly against them sharing the building and forced them out or didn’t allow them at all. Ain’t no fun when the monkey has the gun

−1

QV79Y t1_jdjc3pt wrote

Can someone summarize for me exactly what I'm supposed to be outraged about here?

−2

Rottimer t1_jdjx36j wrote

There is evidence that charter schools, particularly Success Academy, may be over charging the city for rents. The agreement is for the city to pay rent per student and Success seems to be billing for the entire lease of buildings regardless of the number of students.

Because they negotiate real estate deals themselves, it's possible that this could be deliberate to enrich the developers they're working with.

Audits and investigations are needed.

10

Sudden_Rough6734 t1_jdksdun wrote

Y’all do know that Success Academy is not a private charter school. They are a NYC DOE Public Charter school.

−2

mowotlarx t1_jdmsnmv wrote

Success Academy isn't a public school. They're a charter school. Whatever extra kickbacks they get on the public dime doesn't mean anything. They aren't public and don't abide by the same rules.

3

stork38 t1_jdhx5mp wrote

Is there something wrong with this?

−5

AnacharsisIV t1_jdhy83k wrote

To me it feels a bit like they're "double dipping". Charter schools already get funding from the state government without needing to meet the regulations of a public schools, now they're charging public schools rent which ultimately means they're taking money from the state twice.

29

mdervin t1_jdi7p9p wrote

"Double Dipping" is charging twice for the same service/item. Hotels charging a mandatory "resort fee" is double dipping. This is providing two different services and getting paid for each of them.

You may not like the existence of charter schools (and there's plenty of reasons not to like them), but if you are renting a building to the city, it's not some great crime for the city to pay you market rent.

&#x200B;

EDIT: This is a serious concern,

>DOE is paying entire cost of the lease rather than per pupil amount, totaling nearly $43 million in FY 2023 – and in these cases, it is unclear if the rent charged to DOE is inflated or assessed at fair market value.

4

AnacharsisIV t1_jdi8p7z wrote

I actually, broadly, am in favor of charter schools. The problem I have is that, well, charter schools are a quasi-business and there are market forces at play for them that public schools have no control over, but still effect them.

When a charter school in an area does well, parents pull their kids out of local public schools and put them in the charter. I don't have a problem with that, though I also acknowledge that it quickly creates a stratified system where the only kids in charter schools speak fluent English and have no developmental disorders, and would also come from more moneyed families, leaving the public school in the area to basically be nothing but ESL, Special Ed and desperately poor students (who often fall into one of the other two categories, either). This creates a feedback loop; no parents want to put their kids in the public schools, the schools' funding dries up, and the schools start being closed down or downsized such as having to share buildings with charter schools.

Now, we have a new dynamic; the charter schools aren't renting space from the BoE to share a building with a public school anymore, they're now profiting from the public schools becoming shittier. It creates a perverse incentive, in my opinion, where the charter schools can now make money by diminishing the local public school to the point where they have to rent from the charter.

4

mdervin t1_jdiiaow wrote

You are factually wrong.

In NYC, charter school placement is done by lottery. Preference is obviously given to returning students, siblings of students and local residents.

White kids make up only 4% of Charter School Students, the majority(52%) go to private school, with the rest to public school.

20% of Black kids, 9% of Hispanic kids and less than 2% of Asian kids go to Charter schools, which means Charter schools are about 90% Black and Hispanic.

We can easily assume those numbers would be significantly higher Black and Hispanic kids if there were more charter schools.

So just to be clear, you are telling People of Color that they are wrong for sending their children to charter schools.

https://www.schools.nyc.gov/enrollment/enroll-in-charter-schools/how-to-enroll-in-charter-schools

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/complex-demographics-new-york-public-private-schools

3

AnacharsisIV t1_jdijh8t wrote

Where did I say anything that disagrees with what you're saying?

I never said charter admission wasn't based on lotteries. I never said they were substantively white, nor that they weren't full of black and Hispanic students. I never said I was against charter schools or that parents were wrong for sending their children there.

You seem like you're so used to arguing with anti-charter posters you just regurgitate the same facts irrespective of whether or not they prove your point.

4

mdervin t1_jdikb0a wrote

OK, Fine.
Do you believe publicly funded charter schools should exist?

−4

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdiosiq wrote

When you lift caps on charters, your city’s school system becomes Philadelphia. Public schools become repositories for kids whose parents don’t care or don’t have the wherewithal to get them into charters (minus a couple of high performing magnet schools), and every parent who has the time and inclination to fill out an application sends their kid to a charter of decidedly middling quality. You get to break the union, you burn through every young teacher three years out of college, and your public school system is destroyed. And twenty thousand union members with a passable quality of life go looking for greener pastures. That’s what you’re looking for?

8

mdervin t1_jdiravx wrote

Do you think the Philadelphia Public School system was properly educating Children of Color before charter schools existed?

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdis0l2 wrote

Problems are exacerbated by the existence and growth of charters.

7

mdervin t1_jdisflf wrote

Citation needed.

−1

bittoxic00 t1_jdmg6h7 wrote

He means if you take away all the good kids then bad kids become a higher percentage of students and the problem is worse (more visible). He’s upset he’s not teaching geniuses like in the movies he watched as a kid that inspired him to become a teacher and now has a difficult work environment

2

mdervin t1_jdmu36z wrote

Why should poor parents who give a damn about their child's education and future be forced to go to school with bad kids? Especially with an unresponsive (at best) educational bureaucracy?

Why are you so willing to sacrifice the future of poor kids?

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdnhq34 wrote

I think for one no teachers would line up to teach a room of terrible kids who might assault or otherwise shoot them as we just saw a 6 year old do.

2

mdervin t1_jdoagn1 wrote

And you want to put those teacher-shooting kids in the same classroom as kids who want to learn? What kind of monster are you?

0

bittoxic00 t1_jdohqyx wrote

Just for the record, no, they need to have better methods to teach and handle specific children

1

mdervin t1_jdokvqe wrote

What are those methods?

0

bittoxic00 t1_jdon39g wrote

Specialized attention to their needs, therapy, remedial math and English. Have you seen the stats on what percentage of students can perform either at their grade level?

1

mdervin t1_jdrr40z wrote

That doesn't seem so difficult to do. I wonder why the Board Of Ed won't do it?

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdrziiw wrote

It would cost additional teachers and funding

1

mdervin t1_jdsce4s wrote

So because you don't want to pay more in taxes, you want to force poor kids to go to shitty schools with dangerous kids? Once again, what kind of monster are you?

0

bittoxic00 t1_jdsd3v8 wrote

Lol, who said I paid any taxes

1

mdervin t1_jdsiai7 wrote

and now we know why the schools are underfunded, because of people like you.

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdsisqv wrote

Last year I didn’t pay my 3 billion in tax, I figured why do it

2

AnacharsisIV t1_jdikm5g wrote

Yes? I literally said that in my last post.

EDIT: To restate the thesis of my first post; I have no issue with the existence of charter schools, my issue is specifically them being landlords to public schools, because I would rather they dedicate their attention to educating students rather than split their attention between education and real estate.

4

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdi92jo wrote

Isn’t it? It’s taking money from the city to pay for the education of a number of children. It’s taking the excess and purchasing a building. Then, it’s charging the city to educate other children in that same building.

0

mdervin t1_jdije6t wrote

No. terms have meaning. Let's say for example you work for the city, you save up a bit of money buy a building and the city comes to you and says "We'll rent that building from you." Are you double dipping from the city? No of course not.

Now, let us say you are a lazy incompetent worker, show up late, leave early, shoddy results, but you still save enough to buy a building and the city still rents from you? Is that "double dipping?" Once again no.

Now let's say in the rental agreement with the city it's stated that you are to provide handyman and general repair service included with the rent. A window is broken, you repair it, you send a bill to the city for the materials & labor to repair that window. Is that double dipping? Yes!

6

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdil2nk wrote

Money that’s earmarked for educating children should not generate profits. Those profits should not be used to purchase a building that generates further profits. That building should not take further money from the city’s coffers through charged rent.

3

mdervin t1_jdimdoq wrote

So you don't think teachers should profit off their labor? Textbook Publishers? Janitorial Supply companies shouldn't make a profit off what they sell to the school?

edit: NYC spends about 30K per student. Archbishop Molloy charges 11K per year tuition.

3

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdin0vw wrote

I don’t think charter schools should exist. They’re fundamentally different from all other individuals and companies you’ve mentioned. Want to start a school? Great. Go use your own money.

5

mdervin t1_jdir28u wrote

So now do you think NYC public schools are giving Children of Color a proper education?

3

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdiruf9 wrote

I think NYC schools vary widely in quality, just as charters do. The more charters that exist in the system, the more resources, student talent, and tenacious parents flow out of the public system.

4

mdervin t1_jdisn5a wrote

So you want to force students of color to stay in schools that fail them?

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdithth wrote

Straw man.

2

mdervin t1_jdivlyx wrote

That's not what a straw man is. You just aren't willing to accept the decisions Parents of Color make for what they believe is the best interest of their children's education.

Black and Hispanic parents want classes where their children are place with students with the same academic level. Black and Hispanic parents want disruptive and dangerous students kicked out of their children's class. Black and Hispanic parents want the school to be able to fire underperforming teachers.

You want them to sacrifice their children to your ideal of a public school regardless if those ideals help Black and Hispanic Children.

1

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdiyf9v wrote

No, that’s exactly what a straw man is. You’re arguing against a false opponent that you e created, not my actual argument.

You’re all over this thread arguing for charters charging the public rent on buildings bought with public funds intended to educate children. This is so obviously a money grab by organizations less and less accountable to those parents you claim to represent. Stop it.

I’m done here.

3

mdervin t1_jdj6bhr wrote

And those funds were used to educate children. The Board of Ed is riddled with grifters at all levels, a company with basic financial controls and discipline can make a substantive profit educating children. Once again.

The Catholic High Schools educate their kids at 1/3rd and the grade schools at 1/4th of what we spend on public school students.

1

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdi70hx wrote

They’re taking your tax dollars, burning through inexperienced teachers, overpaying board members, kicking out students with disabilities or behavioral problems, using the spare cash to purchase buildings, and then stealing more tax dollars by being the public school system’s landlord.

You should be mad.

20

bittoxic00 t1_jdi7ghq wrote

What’s wrong with kicking out students with behavioral problems

−8

bat_in_the_stacks t1_jdi83w3 wrote

They are legally mandated to be taught. The charters, which are publicly funded, kick out the problem cases. The kids go back to regular public schools. Then the charters advertise how their test scores are higher and their graduation rates are higher than regular public schools. They use this to justify funding more charters. As this cycle progresses, they suck up more and more of the public school funding due to the unfair playing field.

20

bittoxic00 t1_jdia283 wrote

I grew up in the public school system, there were problem kids that really affected classes. The only way past it was moving to another district. These children will still be taught but I just don’t understand why some children can’t flourish in nyc without leaving their neighborhood or shelling out 50k for a private education

2

AnacharsisIV t1_jdi9ta8 wrote

I didn't go to a charter, but I went to a SHSAT school that also didn't have to have ESL or special ed classes or students and my experience going from middle to high school was night and day. Do you understand how much a boon it is to your mental health to no longer worry about being bitten by your fellow student, or to go to a class and everyone is there to actually learn instead of acting out in class? If charter schools are the only way other students can get the experience I had, fucking let them.

Children who need special resources and care are entitled to them, and I hope public schools continue to be able to give that to them, but there is absolutely no reason why other students have to be subjected to them and have their quality of education be attenuated.

0

Slime_Giant t1_jdiiasm wrote

Lolol, is your point here "public schools should only be for the freaks"?

8

AnacharsisIV t1_jdijt5e wrote

If the government isn't going to make public schools better, that's what's going to happen regardless of whether or not I want it.

What I do believe is that it's entirely just and fair for parents and students to choose who they learn with, as long as the state curriculum is followed (IE, don't just put your kids in a religious school and refuse to teach science and math). Unfortunately, too many American families and students don't have that choice.

−2

GoRangers5 t1_jdipb4u wrote

The “freaks” should be allowed to do something else because conventional schooling doesn’t put them in a position to succeed.

−2

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdildym wrote

Philadelphia gutted its public school system in favor of charters. So did the entire state of Louisiana. You should check out how they’re doing.

5

bittoxic00 t1_jdj4ka3 wrote

Because all levels were mixed again, people need to be taught to their ability. If someone is struggling they should get remedial help instead of social promotion and disruption

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdk987g wrote

Career educator? No? I thought not.

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdka7xq wrote

So instead of holding someone back or getting them a more suited education the trick is to push them to the next grade onto a different teacher who now has to deal with both disruptions and retreading material wasting every other students time and then eventually dumping them on the world, uneducated and unprepared for all but the lowest prospects

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdkaw65 wrote

So many members of the public believe that they’re experts in education because they went to public high school. You’re not.

You’re also arguing against a position I have not espoused. Please just stop.

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdkbbfq wrote

I’m not a helicopter pilot but if I see one in a tree I know there’s been a critical error

0

_the_credible_hulk_ t1_jdnmuhs wrote

Have you actually seen the tree, though? When was the last time you set foot in any public school in NYC, let alone more than a single one?

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdj95dv wrote

All these parents want their kids to be forced into classes with children they would tell their kids to stay away from after school

1

Linoose t1_jdj9yhp wrote

Charter schools and nyc public schools get there funding based on their enrollment on 10/31 of each year. In November, a significant number of behavioral students are removed from charters and returned to public schools. Charters keep that money and public schools serve the students.

4

bittoxic00 t1_jdjg5be wrote

Seems like that’s a one timeish maneuver, if it’s 7-12, 6 years of whittling enrollment would hurt them overall

0

brownredgreen t1_jdjz45e wrote

Its an every year manuever, what are you on about?

2

bittoxic00 t1_jdk13yw wrote

So if 7th grade there are 100 kids and attrition is 10% then it’s 90 kids in 8th grade, 81 in 9th, 72 in 10th, 65 in 11th and 59 kids in 12th?

It’s probably the latter

0

brownredgreen t1_jdk1yfd wrote

You're not thinking about this smartly

Each year, 10% attrition from all grades

They also have transfer students? So if the 100 became 90 (due to 10 getting booted) next year, the class could become 95 as new kids join.

Think harder.

1

bittoxic00 t1_jdk6jct wrote

You’re approaching this from a position hate, be open minded, do you think class sizes half 7 through 12?

0

brownredgreen t1_jdk71ly wrote

My graduating class in 12th was definitely smaller (like by 200+) than the 9th grade class. I dont know exact numbers.

You are also ignoring my broader points:

They kick some kids out of every grade, AND, they can add new kids to a grade at years start. Students transfer.

Your not trying.

2

bittoxic00 t1_jdk7tl5 wrote

I can play your game too. First off it’s, “you’re”. Secondly 200 means nothing giving your class could be 201 or 3000. Each class of graduates advancing would be treated independently given an entering class unaltered from a previous year would displace a graduating class. We can debate but if you’re being mean spirited just go join the George santos re-election committee

0

brownredgreen t1_jdka3rn wrote

Oooh you spotted a grammar mistake?! You must win!

Wait... No

Petty nonsense

Block

2

Metapod_Used_Hardon t1_jdhza56 wrote

All the properties the DOE and City own and we need to lease property for schools? Seems wasteful.

14

stork38 t1_jdidg9s wrote

Do they really own as much as you think? The huge legacy schools are all 50 plus years old and there isn't a lot of land to build new schools.

0

Rottimer t1_jdjwjrg wrote

If the charters are overcharging on rent (charging full lease instead of agreed upon per student rent) and using this money to pay for above market rates that they negotiated, then they're enriching someone on state/city tax funds, possibly illegally.

2

newestindustry t1_jdhzlln wrote

>high-test-scoring Succes Academy charter chain bought up 11 plots in Jamaica, Querns

Good read, indeed!

−6

JacksonHeightsOwn t1_jdimnm8 wrote

these reddit "progressives" really hate that charter schools > public schools

−9

brownredgreen t1_jdjzaba wrote

We hate that lie, yes. Cause lies are bad. Ans repeating it doesn't make it true, tho it will convince some people

Lies are bad.

4

JacksonHeightsOwn t1_jdqhtlu wrote

the test scores say otherwise.

−1

brownredgreen t1_jdrebwb wrote

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If you dont realize how they're using stats to lie to you, well, youre not very smart.

2

JacksonHeightsOwn t1_jdrrejj wrote

ad hominem attacks are among the weakest forms of resistance.

more facts: enrollment is up at charter schools in nyc, down in public schools. interesting!

so the test scores are better and the people with skin in the game prefer them.

but i'm sure that you, furious redditor with an unfalsifiable premise, are well positioned to call out these "lies" and "liars."

−1