Slashdot Mirror
Tech Billionaire-Backed Charter School Under Fire In Chicago
theodp writes "'As a nonprofit venture philanthropy firm,' boasts the billionaire-backed NewSchools Venture Fund, 'we raise philanthropic capital from both individual and institutional investors, and then use those funds to support education entrepreneurs who are transforming public education.' One recipient of the NewSchools' largesse is The Noble Network of Charter Schools, which received a $5,300,000 NewSchools 'investment', as well as a $1,425,000 grant from NewSchools donor Bill Gates. One way that Noble Street College Prep has been transforming education, reports the Chicago Tribune, is by making students pay the price — literally — for breaking the smallest of rules (sample infractions). Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel defended Noble after a FOIA filing revealed the charter collected almost $190,000 in discipline 'fees' — not 'fines' — last year from its mostly low-income students, saying the ironically exempt-from-most-district-rules charter school gets 'incredible' results and parents don't have to send their children there. Beyond the Noble case, some are asking a bigger question: Should billionaires rule our schools?"
Should billionaires rule our schools?
No, but I don't think they are (well, at least no more than they rule everything else). The summary makes two HUGE jumps here. It starts by saying that the NewSchools Venture Fund is giving grants to charter schools. Then it attempts to smear the very idea by criticizing one particular practice of one particular group of charter schools in Chicago. Then it makes an even bigger jump by equating this with billionaires "ruling" our schools (as if individual donors to this fund created this one controversial policy, or even had any idea that it existed). I think that whoever wrote this summary is being unfairly critical of charter schools, and even more unfair to those rich donors who are actually *trying* to help (as opposed to those who just hoard their money and or just their wealth to buy new Ferraris).
In an era where the rich are able to get by paying so few taxes in the U.S., I think that those who still CHOOSE to help our ailing schools should be praised, not chastised, for the policies of one particular charter school (and I don't even find their policy that egregious in the first place). It's nice to know that not *all* rich people are just greedy pricks who would say "fuck all" to the poor.
Ideally, the U.S. would have a system where this kind of charity isn't necessary in the first place. But until that day, I don't think we should turn away any help just because it comes from Bill Gates.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There's a good video of a talk by public school teacher on this subject which is worth watching.
We've got enough problems in the US with the systems currently under corporate influence. Why give them another?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Chewing gum.
Carrying visible “flaming or hot chips.’’
Tardy to class more than 3 minutes.
Forgetting your belt.
Carrying a Sharpie or other permanent marker.
Forgetting to place quotation marks around another writer’s words.
Having visible Red Bull, other energy drinks or pop.
Not wearing dress pants or the school shirt.
What's the problem here? These seem pretty straightforward and hard to fuck up, less the Tardy to class one, but you know what? A lot of workplaces aren't cool with that either. I think it's not a bad thing.
If paying these fines is a problem, then make sure you don't get hit with them.
If you don't want your kid to be educated with a strict set of rules in the school, then choose a different school.
This has a very military / boot camp feel to it, and it is obviously have some sort of affect.
Students aren't required to go to the school, and the fines are relatively small. $5 seems enough to be discouraging to the students without breaking anybody's back.
More than anything, somebody is experimenting with a system, and education needs that. I don't know if it's right, but it's not a compulsory place to be and it's not wrong. Good on them.
SIG: HUP
I notice one example of a bad apple... and then a question about the whole bunch at the end. Without more examples, it's hard to say anything about the bunch.
What's wrong with rich people giving money to an already privatised school system? The US is the most capitalistic (large) economy in the world. You guys chose to have this system. You chose to have privatised schools. You chose to have a relatively small group of people who are relatively wealthy. Given all those democratic choices, if I were you, I'd be happy that some money still goes into schools through corporate charity.
If all that money went to dividend (money to shareholders), then nobody would be surprised. I'd say this is better.
First off, are these fines working?
Seriously, gum chewing in schools is a big problem. It is disgusting finding your pants stuck to a desk because someone stuck their gum there.
What's wrong with teaching about plagiarism with a fine. In the real world, fine's are much more.
What are the penalties of not paying a fine? (Can it be sent to collection and ruin your credit rating? That might be too much.)
Are the kids learning? Is the learning environment better than the comparable city schools thanks to the discipline?
OH MY GOD!!!!!
Disciplining children. I mean we removed spanking. We removed yelling. Now we're having issue with financial penalties.
Would someone like to propose an alternative for keeping out classrooms from being like zoos?
Maybe it's have a rule saying no food in class.
As for gum make the fine about if you make a mess
Now maybe in a few classes you may need a permanent marker so maybe retool that rule.
the dress code rules are fine as well as being late.
Students at Noble schools receive demerits for various infractions -- four for having a cellphone or one for untied shoelaces. Four demerits within a two-week period earn them a detention and $5 fine. Students who get 12 detentions in a year must attend a summer behavior class that costs $140.
Five dollars for four demerits appears reasonable. Do the students get a warning and then a demerit?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
A $140 fine for 12 detentions? Really? Why is the student not simply suspended after 5 detentions in one year and expelled after 7-8 detentions?
I went to Missouri Military Academy. Although we didn't have to pay fines, sorry fees, there were a ton of different rules that would get you in trouble. Some demerits were worth more than others. For each point we got the joy and pleasure of marching in a square for 15 min/per demerit. Or 30 min of study hall, depending on the day, or holding an 8 lbs rife straight out for 5 min. The only thing we had to pay with was our free time. In a non boarding school situation money is the only thing you've got to work with, and it has the effect of getting the parent involved as well, since they are paying. I'm sure life isn't good for the kids when mom and dad get a bill for $X and the kid get to spend his time at home working it off. It's looks like the cost of the demerits are fairly cheap, less than a pack of off brand smokes. So it's not like people are getting saddled with huge costs. Sure the list of demerits seems pretty nit picky, but I've experienced worse. "Not sitting up straight, Running in front of the admin building, Gigline not straight." I'm glad some schools out there are trying something different, esp if it seems to be working.
I dislike the fines, but this is EXACTLY the way things like this should be tried out. Try things at relatively small scale and on a population that volunteers for it. This is exactly the way medical research is carried out. If you want the cancer treatment that looks promising, but might not actually work, you have to volunteer to get it and it's available to a limited number of people.
Contrast this with what we usually do: entire school districts, or worse, entire states, or MUCH worse, the whole country tries some harebrained scheme, or even some halfway decent sounding scheme, which turns out to have real problems. Take No Child Left Behind, for example. Testing to measure performance sounds like a really good idea. Could we perhaps have tried it out on a smaller group than the whole country in order to find out it doesn't work?
*I* don't like the idea, but my kids aren't going there. Leave them alone unless there's sufficient data to prove this performs worse than the default.
Incredibly good, I assume.
In evaluating the school, I think you have to first judge how well it is serving the students and families. Then things like the welfare of the teachers and the quality of the facilities. The billionaire connection is rather far down the list of things that I would be concerned about.
Should billionaires rule our schools?
First answer these questions:
1) Will the Billionaires try to make more people like themselves, or more worker drones?
2) If the Billionaires will freely give us the secrets to being Billionaires, do we want our kids to become Billionaires?
If my child grew up to be Warren Buffet, I wouldn't be too upset, but I don't want my kids to be or marry a Don Trump.
A side question is "Do the Billionaires really know how they got where they are, and can they teach it?" (If they inherited their initial money, they will have a hard time teaching kids how to do that.)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
The best correlation of student success is parental interest in their kids education. I come from immigrant family were this was a factor. I and my brothers all received at least one ivy league degree. I've seen poor immigrants from east Europe and Asia do well even when the family did not have a lot of money. Unfortunately the two largest minority groups in the USA do not have lots of family interest in education. They dont do as well even when their schools are well funded.
At least these schools give one a choice. Unfortunately, I bet that everybody still has to fund public schools whether their children go there or not--and while that's precisely analogous to the "Microsoft tax", I bet there will be slashdotters who will defend it.
In the real world, fine's are much more.
Improper use of an apostrophe. $50 fine and 20 points from Gryffindor.
One of the infractions is "Carrying a Sharpie or other permanent marker." . Students have to be careful carrying a Sharpie, they could get cut! its like running with scissors.
Generally it's better to keep the child in school learning, however imperfectly, than having them running around the streets on suspension. You have to ensure that disruptive pupils don't impact on other children's learning, but the principle is a good one.
Oh, STFU, Che. Something seems to be working, but economic crybaby class warfare filth like you still get all weepy. Go buy some new emo outfits or something, geek scum.
I know you think you are being all Mr. High Ground, but you're really just being closed to new data, and committing a hugely superficial analysis here. Typical. You think you know it all, and you know what you know.
What an excellent new way to make money:
1. Lure parents into putting kids in these schools.
2. impose easily breakable rules on the kids and charge them for breaking the rules. Complaints or no payment? Out!
3. PROFIT!!!
"education entrepreneurs.." = vultures ... into private profit centers. What do you want to bet the schools contain advertising and junk-food laden cafeterias and pricy vending machines.
"who are transforming public education"
Probable future rules and fines:
1. Downloading. Action handed off to RIAA.
2. Questioning the establishment: expulsion
3. Not buying Microsoft or Koch Bros products: death or worse.
What kind of school conditions kids to become fearful of making mistakes, by attaching monetary punishment to errors? This is conditioning to obey authority. That doesn't properly belong in legitimate academia. Unless these are schools for truants or reform schools, this is egregious. And even then.
Billionaires are the people who (in general) rose above their competition and found great success. Why wouldn't you want them to control schools? Does it really make more sense to have schools controlled by mediocre individuals?
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
http://www.newschools.org/donors
Anonymous sponsors the school ! *of course*
Actual, better pretty much any group than Public Sector Unions.
Fix the System:
1. Triple every teacher's salary
2. Eliminate Collective Bargaining and Tenure, replacing with individually negotiated Employment Contracts with a maximum 3-year term.
3. Teachers without Employment Contracts have their salaries available for merit-based increase biennially.
3. Eliminate Pensions.
In short, make teachers' jobs like most every other valued job for which you want constant strong competition among skilled employees and potential employees.
Just a note: anyone invoking 1% or 99% is basically assumed by actual thinkers to be a nonthinking entity parroting propaganda.
Way to miss the point, the whole story, the facts, objective reality, the real world, and, oh, anything that doesn't fit into your unassailable, prefab, historically scrapheaped pig ignorant ideological view of Things. Go roll another blunt and take a long toke, dummy. Your world view is expired, tired and never worked.
This system is actually working better than what is there now, but Mr. Ideological Scum can't accept reality. Read the article at least and see that there's no rich kids at the school. It's a good school for kids who were failed by your Holy System, but, no, Mr. Ideological Filth has to focus on one isolated thing and get all high and mighty. Good god, people like you are just the most worthless forms of life in existence.
Should billionaires rule the world?
So you're fine with private organizations imposing fines on a whim?
It is troubling that we have to get to this to impose discipline, and it sure raises a few eyebrows. But on a whim? They aren't. These are infractions. Yes, not having your shirt buttoned or chewing gum, those are behavioral infractions. Fining over them can be argued to be questionable, but flagging these kind of things as infractions is perfectly reasonable. You need to get off your cornbread boundaries and visit other countries with more successful education systems than ours - wearing a proper school uniform is typically one of their common features. There are many reasons why this is so, and it is not rocket science why it works and why it is necessary.
And that a school teaches its students to submit to such arbitrary authority?
It's called discipline, something that apparently you were never exposed to during your primary and secondary education.
well college does not tech all the skills you need for the job and in some jobs you need a TECH SCHOOL / apprenticeships.
Part of why schools are bad is the TEACH THE TEST IDEA and College as to many classes that you pass by just cramming for the test.
Barretta quotes aside, this is something that public schools are no longer able to do.
You can't "punish" Johnny for fear of reprisal from a variety of sources, and make no mistake, with the levels of parental non-involvement, Johnny *needs* some reining in.
Now, does the school need to keep $190K of "fees"? No. They need to make an effort to do something visible and positive with that money, preferably involving the students, in their communities. That would be a lesson everyone could get behind.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
Should college dropouts rule our schools?
Why not have a few college dropouts teach at schools? (Assuming they are successful in some aspect of their lives)
The people who teach and lead in the school system, did well in the school system. Getting people for whom the current system works to teach and run the schools leads to a system just like it was before.
If you have a system that is running at 100% efficiency, as well as it can, then it makes sense to put the same kind of people in charge year after year. But if it isn't, then perhaps it's time to shake things up.
When I was in school, there wasn't a single teacher that had any idea how to start and run a small business. (Except, perhaps for the ones that left to do just that, and they weren't teaching business) Leadership was always mentioned as being important and necessary to get into a good university and do well in life, but there were zero classes in leadership. You were just supposed to learn it by osmosis.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
We cant have THAT in our schools!
So, state and federal laws prohibit schools from using corporal punishment as a means of keeping children, who have never received any type of corrective training in the home, from disrupting the class rooms across the country.
Private citizens decide (after 30 years of failure by the Federal, State, and Local Education Bureaucracy) they can do better. They use their own resources to fund schools that will, of all the hair-brained ideas, EDUCATE THE CHILDREN... (the nerve of some people)
Said Federal and State laws still prohibit corporal punishment, so they come up with a way to punish pupils for behavior that is improper, or disrupts the classroom. Charge them MONEY!
SOMEONE STOP THEM!
Imagine if this were to be tolerated!
In just a few short years there would be TERROR in our schools, as QUIET CLASSROOMS learned MATH, SCIENCE, and (god forbid) READING!
IT WON'T STOP THERE!!!!
"Students" that would have happily disrupted both their own learning, and that of other children will be faced with the HORROR of sitting quietly and LEARNING, or being expelled from school for their inappropriate behavior!
THIS CAN NOT BE TOLERATED!
We can not stand by and allow these BILLIONAIRES to DISCIPLINE these poor helpless children. If these BILLIONAIRES cause these POOR families discomfort, by charging them MONEY for breaking rules, WHAT MESSAGE ARE WE SENDING!
Society has standards that all individuals should be expected to conform to? INTOLERANCE!
Children should learn early to respect those around them, and expect respect towards themselves? TOTALITARIANISM!
And worst of all!
Those that cause trouble will be PUNISHED!
And that PUNISHMENT causes DISCOMFORT!
... it all really avoids the main issue. Not all students can be expected to do well or even like school. School is work and if schools want to see results kids should be paid to get high marks. "Learning" masks what learning really is - a lot of work. Now some of us like/love learning but statistically speaking most people don't like learning, especially things they think are hard or tedious.
Learning in the modern world is a means to an end, lets face this fact. Many societies in the past got by without formal mass schooling just fine. Only in our modern world where we make unrealistic demands in the face of limited human ability do schools 'fail'. What we have failed to do is fail to build a society against the reality of the limits on human potential.
Yes, lets thank rich people for giving a donation that benefits themselves (or their family and friends) that is then a direct tax deduction so that they can say "Look at all the good we did" while depriving the government from being able to provide that same money across the whole and helping where the money is really needed...
(Yes, I realize some rich people really do give to help the whole, but you can not assume that; and if they claim a tax deduction for that donation then as I far as I am concerned this was nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in disguise)
They missed off:
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My SO works in the DC office responsible for training the evaluators who assess teachers in the classroom. I don't know exactly how it worked under Rhee, but I do know the way it works now... about half of teacher evaluations are based on standardized test scores, and the other half is based on in-class observation by professional evaluators.
No one is going to argue that teachers can overcome the strong influences of parental involvement and other exogenous factors. However, of the things that can be dealt with in the school, teacher quality is likely the most important. If year after year you have a teacher whose students show no improvement at all and there are other teachers in the same school (and even same subject) who students do show improvement, what do you do?
There are in fact efforts to identify high quality teachers and disseminate their practices to the rest of the teaching population (this was my SO's last work project), so it's not as if there are no resources going into actually improving the quality of teachers in the classroom. However, the fact remains that in many cases you have teachers who may very well be veterans of the classroom but who frankly aren't all that good at their job. Tenure for primary and secondary teachers in this day and age doesn't make sense - you need to be able to fire poor performers.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
"Should billionaires rule our schools?"
To that question, I answer NO! At least to schools that receive ANY public money. If it is an ENTIRELY private schools, OK. Most charter schools (at least in my state) receive a voucher from the parents which, in my opinion, is the same as getting state money.
On another front, which I find extremely troubling, is universities accepting Koch Foundation funds. The money coming from this foundation comes with BIG strings attached. The university has to agree to allow the Koch Foundation to veto any professor tenure for any reason. There goes your academic independence. If the foundation wants to entirely fund and buy that university, I find that to be acceptable. Right now, public funding of universities is declining so more and more universities are tempted to accept that money and the strings that come with it.
Carrying a Sharpie or other permanent marker.
How will the Latinas do their eyebrows?
Chicago has how many public schools in it? And this is ONE private school you have a problem with? As noted, sending your children there is a choice - something the vast majority of parents lack for their children.
BTW, Chicago teachers, after being forced to forgo this year's 4% pay raise are trying to negotiate a 25% raise next year, with another 4.5% the following year - based, in large part, on the extension of the school day. Apparently the teachers that used to argue they were salaried professionals are now arguing they are hourly workers.
This is also Chicago, where TVs are falling and killing small children at alarming rates.
This is Chicago, the city that was recently ranked the most corrupt city in America.
This is Chicago, where nearly 40% of all students dropped out before graduation LAST YEAR.
This is Chicago where almost 31% of students either meet or exceed standards on the PSAE examinations.
Did parents know about these "fees" when they enrolled? Were the reasons for them explained to the parents when they enrolled their children?
There must have been some reason these parents choose to enroll their children in this school.
Ken
Did you even read the article you linked to?
"With Tax Day coming on Thursday, 47 percent has become shorthand for the notion that the wealthy face a much higher tax burden than they once did while growing numbers of Americans are effectively on the dole. Neither one of those ideas is true. They rely on a cleverly selective reading of the facts. So does the 47 percent number."
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
...get paid for good performance? If not then it is clearly biased to suppress students into being good little zombies.
Of course not, a teacher is a teacher is a teacher, they are interchangeable professionals and can teach anything to anybody - as long as you make sure you give them a copy of the text book that has all the answers.
Ken
Could someone with direct, first-hand experience please stand up?
Having the group that benefits from the fine also decide what needs to be punished, and whether students are guilty or not, is a conflict of interest. Of course, such conflicts of interest exist in the real world as well, but it's worse the closer the lawmakers, judge, and cashier are to each other. And in the real world, we recognize such things as potential for corruption--most people don't have a high regard for speed traps, and recognize that they are more about making revenue than actually improving safety, because of the perverse incentives involved.
I suppose the students are taught a lesson, but not quite the one they want to teach.
Why not have a few college dropouts teach at schools? (Assuming they are successful in some aspect of their lives)
Because, statistically, Bill Gates is an outlier. The people who 'do well', who I want to teach my kids, made it through college, or tech school, or an apprenticeship. If I've got to bet on what the best path to success is, I'm putting my money on someone who completed some course of education.
I don't want sports starts speaking to my kids either. Odds are that most kids who aspire to play pro sports will fail miserably. Those that make it are rotten role models for all but a lucky few. Not that they are bad people. Just way out on the far end of the bell curve.
Have gnu, will travel.
What, as opposed to the 47% of citizens that now net zero federal taxes at all? That the top 1% already pays 40% of the national tax burden?
That's exactly the opposite of what the article said. Did you actually read the article you are linking to? If so, then you're deliberately misrepresenting it.
The actual headline is:
"Yes, 47% of Households Owe No Taxes. Look Closer."
The article says that's true only if you define "taxes" to exclude payroll taxes. It says:
"About three-quarters of households pay more in payroll taxes than in income taxes."
I really get pissed off when people try to have an intelligent, informed conversation and you have to spend 15 minutes checking the conservative sources and have their facts turn out to be wrong. Deliberately distorting facts is the worst thing you can do, IMO. Negligently distorting facts is a pretty close second.
It's a waste of time to try to have an intelligent debate with conservatives. The time is better spent reading Paul Krugman http://www.playboy.com/magazine/playboy-interview-paul-krugman and going to Occupy Wall Street to figure out how to organize politically to stop them from destroying the country.
The zombies in government are paid for their performance by billionaires and the "market" is doing so well at privatizing our representative democracy why not have them do similar things with our schools, teachers, and students.
Those stickers, stars, points, and grades are only metaphors today's kids don't know what a metaphor is, they need real-world money to make them move. Intellectual curiosity and interest are not necessary if not dangerous to the social Darwinist society we value so highly.
As for helping others or society, that is such a primitive concept only perpetuated by some extremist religious people; those 2000 year old beliefs are the dreaded socialistic plague! People must SHOP and make as much money as they can so they can CONSUME and that is the only modern civilized way to to help others. People who do not learn this are fools and unfit to continue just as a weak animal quickly becomes prey; this is nature and we shouldn't oppose it just because of some ancient socialist teachings.
Am I the only one seeing the irony that a billionaire is promoting this with charity for the weak? He has lost his way! The school should be allowed to fail. ;-)
http://www.flackcheck.org/lincoln-campaign/honestly-abe-2
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
I think you're sort of on the right track. The problem is how much do we respect the students' ability and right to informed consent? Do the students' have a voice at all, do they deserve one, and for that matter, how informed are the parents going into these experiments? This is true of both large and small project, and solutions are hard to come by, which is part of the issue with the snails pace of educational reform.
NCLB isn't a new idea, in fact, that isn't even the real name. It is actually a set of additional rules for Title 1 funding from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act from 1965. Title 1 federal funds have had various stipulations through the years, and the current AYP goals on annual tests are just the latest. There are other sections, also, like Title 3, which deals with funds for language learners. The federal government can't influence educational policy directly, so they gather up as much money as they can, and then attach as many strings as they can, so that eventually federal policy becomes mandated at the local level. Who does this affect the most? The least funded schools in low socioeconomic areas. Wealthy school districts don't need Title 1 money, and have always been able to just tell the feds to screw off.
But since not all schools are funded the same way (in California, look at the "Basic aid" vs. "Revenue Limited" issue which ensures the disparity) the federal money is very, very important to some districts. In fact, my current position is funded entirely through federal funding sources. Some here (actually many, having read through the comments) would say I'm exactly the kind of person who is part of the problem with public education and spending. I work out of the district office as a technology coach for integration with curriculum and teacher training, as well as a bulk of the data collection and analysis for student performance. Here's a quick hint: if you make test scores and data more and more important to schools, they will hire more and more statisticians and administrative analysts.
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I get that people all over aren't happy with what schools are doing and how much they cost, but I also don't think people understand how complicated it all is, and how impossible it is to deliver on all the expectations with a fraction of the money. It wears me out a bit.
'Donating' money to neoliberal organizations so that a public service can be privatized and profits can be skimmed of the top of public funds should not be classified as philanthropy. It should be classified as corporate communism.
As opposed to the morons who currently rule?
I'd rather have the Billionaires, to be honest. They know how to produce, innovate, and succeed, and that's the kind of culture I would want my child to learn in.
Bureaucrats only know how to snivel and play their government-granted power trip.
Would you want your kid learning from a successful person who has ambition and drive, or someone no more qualified to cop an attitude behind the desk of the DMV than they are to teach?
The same people freaking out last week over the 4 year old's lunch, are now fully in support of this.
Why yes, that's just what we need, more discipline in schools. And if that doesn't work, then we need even more discipline. And so on.
Perhaps it's time to throw out the old model, and create a new one. Pity that the effects of the current system dull the creativity of its 'products,' such that the proper solution may never occur to them.
I am John Hurt.
OK here's what perhaps people are missing about this scheme and what's really insidious
Researchers know that paying someone money to learn (or the reverse of this, fining them for not learning) has the effect of making learning uninteresting to the learner unless money is involved as an incentive / disincentive.
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/Review/V72N6/0401_feature1.html
This of course perfectly describes the mind set known as "greedy" where all expenditure of mental effort is evaluated first and foremost on a transactional basis and is never its own reward.
The people who most fit the above description are of course just those billionaires funding these schemes.
So these schools become narcissistic projections of the funder's own egos and value systems.
But these personalities don't invent, they aren't creative, they aren't the source of technological progress.
Rather they're the specific personalities that fill the role of monopolist winners within a system that is guaranteed to produce such winners in any event. Given our system of deregulatory capitalism and pliable legislators and courts, someone was going to be Bill Gates and someone was going to be Larry Ellison. They're not unique in that sense.
Ellison himself characterized the early buggy database as a "roach motel for for information- data goes in, but it never comes out..." which is not surprising since he invented none of it and barely understood E F Codd's relational model to begin with. Nevertheless he's a business winner.
Gates famously invented nothing of note; he was good in his capacity as a narcissistic leader and good at surrounding himself with co-dependents who could be relied on to fiercely buy into the cult of personality and do actual work.
This is in marked contrast to the mindset of the lowly researcher who actually invents new technology and makes actual discoveries. This type of person is curious for curiosity's sake and feels wonder at things that motivates her towards knowledge for knowledge's sake. Some of them become entrepreneurs it's true but they're two different personality types- one is mercantile and transactional and fundamentally disinterested in anything that won't make her money and the other is more likely to seek out a position in life which will let her pursue her interests and be comfortable. All of academia is built on this basic fact.
More likely the real reason is to weed out the troublemakers by bleeding their parents to the point they have to drop out, leaving the unquestioningly compliant who will do as their told to avoid going back to the nearly un-funded public schools due to white flight or under-funded due to the UMC whining about property tax rates.
The US government is a multi-trillionaire. Do we want our schools controlled by the single wealthiest entity in the entire history of the world?
Raising a group of children to think that as long as they have enough money they can do whatever they please... Sounds like humanity to me. What's the issue here? Is it that we're teaching them this lesson too soon instead of letting them figure it out for themselves the first time they have to buy their way out of trouble as an adult? I guess that's a big turning point in the life of any financially successful "bad" person, and we shouldn't take that sense of discovery away from them.
Good point, normal kids should have normal role models and normal aspirations.
In my kid's school, when they study people, they study the outliers, Presidents, civil rights leaders, inventors. (Some never graduated school) My oldest has always earned straight 'A's, and always tests at 99 percentile. She *is* an outlier.
I don't have anything against people who graduated College. I have a CS degree and my wife has a PhD., but I won't discount a successful person that doesn't have the educational certifications.
I second what you say about sports stars. Being a genetic outlier doesn't tell a kid anything to help them if the child is not genetically gifted. But, I suspect that following the advice of Bill G. *could* be useful to someone starting a small business.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Of course not, a teacher is a teacher is a teacher, they are interchangeable professionals and can teach anything to anybody - as long as you make sure you give them a copy of the text book that has all the answers.
Sorry, I'm missing your point. Are you saying it's not reasonable to expect a school teacher to have real world experience?
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I think these "fines" are a brilliant idea. Every school should have them.
"... some are asking a bigger question: Should billionaires rule our schools?" The bigger question is, "Do we want unaccountable government monopolies ruling our schools?" Our present "system of education" is clearly not working. We should be examining worthwhile alternatives.
I wouldn't hire someone who could not tie their shoes.
Somewhat related: I was in an informal meeting with some high level hallway meeting (with politicians and lobbyists) when the owner of a large firm pointed out that I had scuffs on my shoes. They were a bit worn and cheaper than most dress shoes. And I agree, it was a minor quibble but it did show a lack of attention to detail and a level of unprofessional appearance. I have since learned that some people pay attention to these minor things.
For readers who are more interested in K12 virtual schooling (both private and charter) and less interested in whether or not TFA is describing actual malfeasance, I'd just like to give a quick shout out to Connections Academy (http://www.connectionsacademy.com) which operates charters in several states as well as being available as a private option nationally.
To make a long story short, I've experienced CA through the lens of four grade school children over a few different years, and I was thouroughly impressed the entire time. Honestly, given the miserable public K12 experience I had, I was jealous of them the whole time. The curriculum they provide is solid, well rounded, and challenging. The online system is clear and functional. We went through their charter in Oregon, and their local staff were all Ore. public school employees, and they were just as happy to be teachers for the charter as we were to be students/parents.
Obviously YMMV with this particular organization, or any other one that is out there like K12 Academy, IQ Academy, or some of the other orgs out there. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that we're far enough along in the evolution of virtual schooling that you don't need to accept "bleeding edge" pitfalls of early adoption if you want to get your kids into a virtual school. As far as TFA goes, I wouldn't touch these guys with a 10 ft. pole. Even within the constraints of your local charter system, you'll probably have options to choose from. So if you're worried about a "billionaire" running your school, don't choose that charter. Duh. Now when some state finally gets around to subcontracting their entire system to a single vendor... THAT is when you get your hackles up.
I also don't think people understand how complicated it all is, and how impossible it is to deliver on all the expectations with a fraction of the money. It wears me out a bit.
So, disappoint someone. Deliver on fewer expectations, the expectations that parents actually care about, and lay off all the statisticians and administrative assistants that are needed to comply with Title 1. I'm sure that Christy (by Catherine Marshall) was not concerned about federal funding.
Oh, and while I'm talking of impossible dreams, let's get corporations out of politics. The teacher unions are a scourge on the nation.
But that's not my call. In local school board elections, I've never voted for a member of a teacher's union, but they keep being elected. The non-members I vote for never win.
Have a nice time.
Funny that you mention a work of fiction that's more about religion than it is about education. The ideal in the USA since the beginning of public schools has been to hire women as teachers, due to "being gentler and more sympathetic towards children" (Horace Mann), with the added benefit that you could pay them 1/3 of what you would have to pay a man making them an "attractive and economical hire". Which is completely reinforced by your cited (fictional) evangelical going on a mission for god into the rough wilderness, teaching manners and hygene for pennies and then marrying a man when her mission is done (which also means that it's time for a new teacher).
I guess when your ideals are that fucked up and antiquated, then yes, unions seems like a scourge and everyone needs to get off your lawn.
Making eye contact constantly and tracking the speaker. Wonderful- do they teach how to take notes while not looking at their pen/pencil and paper? Great choice; follow the rules so you don't get fined, or take the chance so you don't fail.
Has anyone noticed as increasingly weird rules are applied, education results keep going down? The education system seemed to turn out pretty good people back in the 1920s-1960s (K-12 kids). Going to the moon, creating nukes, that kind of big stuff. Now we're worried about nail clippers and Tylenol in school rooms. And it's not like private schools are much better, either, since they build reputations with equally weird shit.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
This has got to be the best idea with respect to education in decades.
Oh, did I? 0. The correct income tax is 0.
That's a fun fantasy, isn't it? If you have two neurons communicating with each other you would know that is an impossible thing to do, government would collapse if income tax went away completely. Your "liberties" would go away with it.
By the way, you gave the wrong date for your cult rally. Or did the cult not want you to show up because you even make them look crazy?
I'm not sure why people think charter schools are private ... they are public schools that have been given control over various aspects of school life (teaching philosophies, structure, etc.). They are part of the local public school district, and many (if not most) of the teachers are members of the union. Charter schools receive funding from the public school pool but also raise money on their own (as do most public schools for special events, etc.).