RugbyRebels

Don't worry, charter schools backed by the Clinton Foundation will soon be spreading their free market small pox to public infrastructure the world over. I can tell you first hand Coco that the ability of recent school leavers and graduates to undertake independent work at the next level is pretty grim at the moment.

Fuck charter schools. Fuck charter schools forever.

word.

cashead wrote:Fuck charter schools. Fuck charter schools forever.

In a lot of cases I would agree, however, my daughter did her last 2 years at a Charter School that is funded by a very good hospital and many of the faculty are medical professionals. Both years she was required to intern at the hospital part time, and her senior year was a paid internship. It was very good experience for her academics and for life itself.

What are charter schools?

Donny osmond wrote:What are charter schools?

I think they are similar to free schools,but as with all these schemes the devil is in the detail .

Donny osmond wrote:What are charter schools?

State schools (comprehensive, I believe was the UK-term) run in a similar manner to private schools - i.e., an established charter and receives public funding, but is outside of the public schooling system.

The ones set up down here have been an absolute quagmire of mismanagement, with questionable legislation designed to favour them - they're not subject to the Official Information Act (unless it involves suspensions and exclusions) or Ombudsman scrutiny, while teaching staff are not required to be registered or even trained.

I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

Donny osmond wrote:I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

You say that, and again the devils in the detail, but it's basically how Swedish schools are run and they do rather well.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

You say that, and again the devils in the detail, but it's basically how Swedish schools are run and they do rather well.

Come to Philadelphia and see how well they do. They are shit. The ones in NZ are plagued by fraud, shoddy standards, and more shit.

morepork wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

You say that, and again the devils in the detail, but it's basically how Swedish schools are run and they do rather well.

Come to Philadelphia and see how well they do. They are shit. The ones in NZ are plagued by fraud, shoddy standards, and more shit.

That may well be true but that doesn't mean that the model itself is bad, which is Donny's point.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

Whats a proper school?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
You say that, and again the devils in the detail, but it's basically how Swedish schools are run and they do rather well.

Come to Philadelphia and see how well they do. They are shit. The ones in NZ are plagued by fraud, shoddy standards, and more shit.

That may well be true but that doesn't mean that the model itself is bad, which is Donny's point.

I think it's inherently flawed. It is a vehicle for accessing public wealth. Tax funded entities, many of them for-profit, operating without public accountability is a bad idea kids.

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:I see, cheers. Well, I dont have anything against the concept, afaic the less ability any govt has to tell teachers how to teach the better, but as you say they would still need to be subject too pretty stringent standards for employment of teachers and outcomes for pupils.

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

The majority of public funded school districts are corrupt and barely accountable. (As it is with most other govt, public, state, city, county resources)

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

The majority of public funded school districts are corrupt and barely accountable. (As it is with most other govt, public, state, city, county resources)

Because nothing screams "corrupt and barely accountable" like being under the jurisdiction and watch of 3 different government organisations.

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

The majority of public funded school districts are corrupt and barely accountable. (As it is with most other govt, public, state, city, county resources)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

One that is accountable.

The majority of public funded school districts are corrupt and barely accountable. (As it is with most other govt, public, state, city, county resources)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I can agree with that theory, but it still does not make it so. Reality is much different than the bubblegum-chewing, rainbow and butterfly-farting utopian unicorn you speak of.

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:
The majority of public funded school districts are corrupt and barely accountable. (As it is with most other govt, public, state, city, county resources)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

I can agree with that theory, but it still does not make it so. Reality is much different than the bubblegum-chewing, rainbow and butterfly-farting utopian unicorn you speak of.

The fuck you on about? Address accountability issues in education by funding alternative entities that are opaque and operate outside of all remaining oversight. Genius. Did you go to Trump University?

There are also inherent issues in the educational system that require a comprehensive overhaul.

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:

morepork wrote:
Two wrongs do not make a right.

I can agree with that theory, but it still does not make it so. Reality is much different than the bubblegum-chewing, rainbow and butterfly-farting utopian unicorn you speak of.

The fuck you on about? Address accountability issues in education by funding alternative entities that are opaque and operate outside of all remaining oversight. Genius. Did you go to Trump University?

No Porky. Address accountability and maybe.. Just maybe.. parents would not feel the need to send their kids to alternative entities that they feel suits their children's needs best. It is the parent's choice to do so. It is also a choice to home school, which socially, I am not much of a fan of.

morepork wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

morepork wrote:

Come to Philadelphia and see how well they do. They are shit. The ones in NZ are plagued by fraud, shoddy standards, and more shit.

That may well be true but that doesn't mean that the model itself is bad, which is Donny's point.

I think it's inherently flawed. It is a vehicle for accessing public wealth. Tax funded entities, many of them for-profit, operating without public accountability is a bad idea kids.

Ok, if they're for profit its not the model I was thinking of. Afaik Scotland has 1 school that's comparable, Jordanhill which is publicly funded by the Scottish Govt, rather than Glasgow council, and thus is autonomous from local authority control. Its a state school tho, not a for-profit operation. Anything that's run as a for profit organisation in Scotland would be considered a private school I think.

It does seem weird to have publicly funded schools running as autonomous for profit organizations. That's just a weird model to follow.

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

They rape public resources to the detriment of proper schools.

Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

Who should schools be accountable to, who sets the standards they should be judged against? I'm not arguing with you, btw, just interested

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Whats a proper school?

One that is accountable.

Who should schools be accountable to, who sets the standards they should be judged against? I'm not arguing with you, btw, just interested

Ideally, not shareholders.