[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The poor quality of the school system (The Villages may be an exception) drags down Florida's quality of life. Right now there are 8,000 unfilled teacher vacancies throughout the state. Several thousand substitutes are needed and the school year starts in 2 weeks. 33% of all Florida homes are owned by hedge funds and other corporations.

The public schools pretty much stink everywhere, other than some wealthier areas where parents actually raise their kids instead of pushing the job off on teachers. If the teachers' unions weren't so powerful, there would be a lot more charter schools. And private schools receiving public funding. Home schooling has seen a meteoric rise since Covid, when parents accidentally found out what was going on in public schools. The percentage of public school kids who can't read or do math at grade level, particularly in urban areas, is appalling.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

The public schools pretty much stink everywhere, other than some wealthier areas where parents actually raise their kids instead of pushing the job off on teachers. If the teachers' unions weren't so powerful, there would be a lot more charter schools. And private schools receiving public funding. Home schooling has seen a meteoric rise since Covid, when parents accidentally found out what was going on in public schools. The percentage of public school kids who can't read or do math at grade level, particularly in urban areas, is appalling.

I agree with this and think charter schools are important.

However, I believe charter schools should have to accommodate problem students, learning disabled, handicapped students also. These students should be evenly divided between all schools and level the pressure on public schools and private/charter schools.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I agree with this and think charter schools are important.

However, I believe charter schools should have to accommodate problem students, learning disabled, handicapped students also. These students should be evenly divided between all schools and level the pressure on public schools and private/charter schools.

Do you have some reason to believe the Villages Charter Schools do not accept those children when they otherwise qualify? I *thought* I saw budget lines for that kind of accommodation but it has been a while since I looked.

Those students will not be evenly divided between all schools unless they are evenly divided between the groups who qualify for the Charter Schools and those who do not. If the Charter Schools are discriminating against those students then that is wrong. If there are simply fewer of those children in the eligible population then that's just the way things are.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Do you have some reason to believe the Villages Charter Schools do not accept those children when they otherwise qualify? I *thought* I saw budget lines for that kind of accommodation but it has been a while since I looked.

Those students will not be evenly divided between all schools unless they are evenly divided between the groups who qualify for the Charter Schools and those who do not. If the Charter Schools are discriminating against those students then that is wrong. If there are simply fewer of those children in the eligible population then that's just the way things are.

Yeah, it’s wrong. You may want to perform an online search regarding cherry picking students by charter schools.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I agree with this and think charter schools are important.

However, I believe charter schools should have to accommodate problem students, learning disabled, handicapped students also. These students should be evenly divided between all schools and level the pressure on public schools and private/charter schools.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Do you have some reason to believe the Villages Charter Schools do not accept those children when they otherwise qualify? I *thought* I saw budget lines for that kind of accommodation but it has been a while since I looked.

Those students will not be evenly divided between all schools unless they are evenly divided between the groups who qualify for the Charter Schools and those who do not. If the Charter Schools are discriminating against those students then that is wrong. If there are simply fewer of those children in the eligible population then that's just the way things are.

Can either of you articulate why you think think that's a good idea? I have several family members who are teachers and their experience is that "problem students" (which I assume you mean behavioral issues) are disruptive and ruin the learning environment for the non-problem students. I think children would thrive better in an optimum learning environment. I also believe that the level should be tailored as well, i.e., smarter kids should be in accelerated learning environments, average students in normal grade level, and struggling/learning disabled students in specially tailored programs with extra staff and extra educational help.

One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.

What am I missing?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Yeah, it’s wrong. You may want to perform an online search regarding cherry picking students by charter schools.

There's a difference between picking the best and brightest and discriminating against eligible children who have disabilities. I'm not ready to condemn all charter schools based solely on accusations against a few.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Can either of you articulate why you think think that's a good idea? I have several family members who are teachers and their experience is that "problem students" (which I assume you mean behavioral issues) are disruptive and ruin the learning environment for the non-problem students. I think children would thrive better in an optimum learning environment. I also believe that the level should be tailored as well, i.e., smarter kids should be in accelerated learning environments, average students in normal grade level, and struggling/learning disabled students in specially tailored programs with extra staff and extra educational help.

One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.

What am I missing?

Perhaps I can explain why the playing field needs to be level. I’m PRO charter schools. However, when a public school district has greatly reduced funding due to charter school support and almost all the expensive, learning challenged students are in their classrooms, the equal education tips favorably for the charter schools.

To top it all off, parents of charter school students vote down necessary, basic funding of public schools. They can afford private and screw the rest of the students. I think if most people could witness the issues public schools deal with in their expenses for ALL students, they would wake up. The division of the classes of people is getting greater.

[dtennent]

I am a big believer in public education. Are there teachers who aren’t very good? Absolutely! However, there are many more who do a very good job. Having a home environment which supports education makes a huge difference in what a student will learn. I had parents who discussed with me all the subjects that I had in school. It wasn’t always fun but I went to bed thoroughly prepared for the next day.

I also believe in putting students into tracks according to their abilities. Not everyone should go to college. However, everyone should be able to read, write, and do basic math. Unfortunately, when charter schools take the cream of the students and reduce the funding for the rest of the students, public education takes a hit.

Finally, instead of looking at public education as a cost, we should look at it as an investment into the future of our country.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Can either of you articulate why you think think that's a good idea? I have several family members who are teachers and their experience is that "problem students" (which I assume you mean behavioral issues) are disruptive and ruin the learning environment for the non-problem students. I think children would thrive better in an optimum learning environment. I also believe that the level should be tailored as well, i.e., smarter kids should be in accelerated learning environments, average students in normal grade level, and struggling/learning disabled students in specially tailored programs with extra staff and extra educational help.

One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.

What am I missing?

I believe you are asking me to articulate why I think it is a good idea that charter schools do not discriminate against against children with disabilities. That is simple - the charter schools are public schools funded by my school tax dollars and all children have a right to an education in our public schools.

If the charter school wants my tax dollars then it serves the public and does not discriminate.

If the school wants to discriminate or otherwise have selective/private admission then it can have selective/private funding and leave public tax dollars for public schools.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Aces4

However, I believe charter schools should have to accommodate problem students, learning disabled, handicapped students also. These students should be evenly divided between all schools and level the pressure on public schools and private/charter schools.

From the web:

A charter school is a public school that operates under a performance contract, or "charter," that gives it more flexibility than traditional public schools. Charter schools are exempt from many state and local regulations, but they must still adhere to public school regulations. They are also accountable for academic and financial results.

Charter schools are tuition-free and publicly funded, but they generally receive fewer dollars per pupil than district schools. They are run by a school leader or principal and an appointed board, and are overseen by an authorizer, which can be a state education agency, a higher education institution, or other entities.

Charter schools can: Tailor their curriculum, Choose their academic focus, Set their discipline policy, and Determine their staffing ratios.

Parents, teachers, or community members can initiate a charter petition, which is usually presented to and approved by a local school district governing board.

[BlueStarAirlines]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

One of the craziest things I've seen lately in public education (and there are many) is the idea that since some kids can't read/math we should dumb down the curriculum so that the low kids don't feel bad. Some have removed honors and AP classes for this purpose. I don't see how removing a proper level of learning from the high kids helps the low kids. This reeks of the whole participation trophy nonsense and is turning our youth into a bunch of weak snowflakes.

This is exactly what happened in the school district we moved from. In fact, there is no longer a "F" for failing a course. Now the lowest one can get is a D-, which means its impossible to fail an individual course even if one gets a 0% every quiz or test. They have also removed student ranking, so graduating in the top X% of your class is no more.

The wealthier parents are doing everything from enrolling their kids in private schools to after school tutoring in advanced math, sciences, and languages. Most of the tutors are the teachers from the schools, so they are making more money by teaching after hours what was part of the regular curriculum.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

From the web:

A charter school is a public school that operates under a performance contract, or "charter," that gives it more flexibility than traditional public schools. Charter schools are exempt from many state and local regulations, but they must still adhere to public school regulations. They are also accountable for academic and financial results.

Charter schools are tuition-free and publicly funded, but they generally receive fewer dollars per pupil than district schools. They are run by a school leader or principal and an appointed board, and are overseen by an authorizer, which can be a state education agency, a higher education institution, or other entities.

Charter schools can: Tailor their curriculum, Choose their academic focus, Set their discipline policy, and Determine their staffing ratios.

Parents, teachers, or community members can initiate a charter petition, which is usually presented to and approved by a local school district governing board.

It all looks so pretty on paper, doesn’t it? More flexibility means more control and accountability for the student, which has been removed in public schools. Problem or high maintenance students are screened out of the “mainstream” pupil population in charter schools.

To top it off, private schools are primarily parochial which steers many parents away from registering their children.

Do I believe charter schools should be funded by the public? Yes, I do but only at 50% of the funding for public schools or allow public schools the same control advantages by which the private schools operate.

For the record, one of our three children, the youngest, was educated in a private, parochial school. Night and day difference in quality of education due to the discipline that was implemented there. We wished we would have sent all three of children to that private school.

But what is extremely obvious to us now is the fact there where no children with learning or behavior issues present.

Public schools deal with all students and need more financial support than private schools. Another solution if the private schools want equal funding, is to divide the challenged students between public and private schools.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

It all looks so pretty on paper, doesn’t it? More flexibility means more control and accountability for the student, which has been removed in public schools. Problem or high maintenance students are screened out of the “mainstream” pupil population in charter schools.

To top it off, private schools are primarily parochial which steers many parents away from registering their children.

Do I believe charter schools should be funded by the public? Yes, I do but only at 50% of the funding for public schools or allow public schools the same control advantages by which the private schools operate.

For the record, one of our three children, the youngest, was educated in a private, parochial school. Night and day difference in quality of education due to the discipline that was implemented there. We wished we would have sent all three of children to that private school.

But what is extremely obvious to us now is the fact there where no children with learning or behavior issues present.

Public schools deal with all students and need more financial support than private schools. Another solution if the private schools want equal funding, is to divide the challenged students between public and private schools.

Charter schools are NOT private schools. Charter schools are public schools receiving public funding and enrolling the general public. Charter schools should receive the same public funding per child that any public school receives. Based on the Sumter County Schools budget, that appears to be the case here.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Charter schools are NOT private schools. Charter schools are public schools receiving public funding and enrolling the general public. Charter schools should receive the same public funding per child that any public school receives. Based on the Sumter County Schools budget, that appears to be the case here.

Keep telling yourself that line.

Charter schools should, therefore, be required to intake ALL students.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Keep telling yourself that line.

Charter schools should, therefore, be required to intake ALL students.

What students do they NOT take?

Are you accusing the charter schools of selective admission or discrimination? That is illegal - gather the evidence and prove it.