(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

Nah, don't ban him. It's interesting seeing someone that sees everything through the lens of "whitey is a racist all the time with everything he does".

(03-22-2016 02:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

Nah, don't ban him. It's interesting seeing someone that sees everything through the lens of "whitey is a racist all the time with everything he does".

I've never said any such thing.

I simply let the facts speak for themselves.

(03-22-2016 02:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

Nah, don't ban him. It's interesting seeing someone that sees everything through the lens of "whitey is a racist all the time with everything he does".

I've never said any such thing.

I simply let the facts speak for themselves.

You used statistics, which may or may not support the hypothesis that the article floated.

Can you answer my questions above?

(03-22-2016 02:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

Nah, don't ban him. It's interesting seeing someone that sees everything through the lens of "whitey is a racist all the time with everything he does".

I don't think you'll have to worry about Feet being banned. Birds of a feather stick together. How else are they going to make us see the Liberal light?

Don't you know that to them fighting for poor thugs, muslim murderers, BLM protestors is their way to karma.

(03-22-2016 02:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

Nah, don't ban him. It's interesting seeing someone that sees everything through the lens of "whitey is a racist all the time with everything he does".

I've never said any such thing.

I simply let the facts speak for themselves.

You ignore facts and bring up skittles...

(03-22-2016 01:35 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(03-18-2016 01:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Charter schools suspended higher percentages of black students and students with disabilities than traditional schools did. The overall difference between suspension rates in charters versus traditional schools isn't huge: In the 2011-12 academic year, charters suspended 7.8 percent of all students, compared with 6.7 percent for noncharters. But these gaps increase when you look at who is getting suspended: In charter schools, black students and students with disabilities were suspended at higher percentages in all grades than their peers in traditional schools. In middle and high schools, 12 percent more students with disabilities and 2.5 percent more black students were suspended in charters compared with noncharters.

Link

Questions....

Is there a higher percentage of students with disabilities and students with behavioral issues at charter schools?

Is the percentage of black students higher at charter schools?

I don't have the information. My guess would be no because many charter schools do not have the resources the public school have. By law, public schools have to accommodate everyone. I don't think those other schools have to.

Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

(03-22-2016 02:52 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

He doesn't know. He's confused himself with his derailing of his own thread.

(03-22-2016 02:52 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

Please pay attention. The problem with charter schools is that they don't have to take everyone. For this reason, they are allowed to discriminate. Since we live in a country that has a very dark history in racism, it is more susceptible to the practice.

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

Black Americans are 12.6% of the population, yet charter schools are made up of 30% black students. What's the problem?

US Demographics
Black Demographics on education

(One source is wiki, the other is something weird that I've never heard of but was on the front page google results)

So evidently charter schools are not excluding anybody based on race. So where is the racial discrimination? Are you sjw bleeding hearts upset that many charters use a "no excuses" policy?

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:52 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

Please pay attention. The problem with charter schools is that they don't have to take everyone. For this reason, they are allowed to discriminate. Since we live in a country that has a very dark history in racism, it is more susceptible to the practice.

So on one hand, they suspend black students at a higher rate than government schools, but in the other hand, they don't admit black students? Do you have any evidence to suggest that charter schools aren't admitting students because of their skin color? Are there any laws or judge rulings you can link us to that allows charter schools to violate the constitution and discriminate based on skin color as you said they are allowed to do?

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:52 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

Please pay attention. The problem with charter schools is that they don't have to take everyone. For this reason, they are allowed to discriminate. Since we live in a country that has a very dark history in racism, it is more susceptible to the practice.

Back this statement with facts. All of the charter schools in my area are predominantly minorities and low income children. You're completely full of and apparently the mods dgaf about making you follow the AUP.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Qg&cad=rja

Quote:public charter schools across the nation enroll, on average, a greater percentage of low income students (46 percent versus 41 percenti), Black and Latino students (27 percent versus 15 percent and 26 percent versus 22 percent, respectivelyii), and students who perform lower on standardized assessments before transferring to charter schools.

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better.

This is not the case in California, and I don't know a state where it is (but I'm not an expert - if you have some examples you should provide them). Charter schools are public and therefore can't discriminate against any student who wants to attend. Popular charters have lotteries, but that's random. Now, to the extent that a charter has a particular focus (arts, science), it may attract a certain type of student who is likely to be a higher achiever. But it still doesn't allow the school to deny enrollment.

(03-22-2016 02:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:07 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Fit is nothing more than a troll who should be banned. Somehow he is able to get away with this nonsense but when you call him out on it you get a warning. Go figure.

It's in the job duties for mods. Protect the leftists at every turn.

Because the mods are lefties.

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

Another BS statement from a leftist.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Ww&cad=rja

Quote:Contrary to the impression some have that charters “cream” more advantaged students from traditional public schools, a majority of charter school students are non-white, or minority students. Only 45 percent of charter students are white, while 52.5 percent of public school
students are white. Figure 6 provides key demographic comparisons between charter students and public school students based on the charter survey results and the most recently available data for public school students from the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education. The populations of charter students and public school students appear to be comparable with respect to special education status, the proportion of English language learners, and gi"ed and talented students. Charter students are somewhat more likely to qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch due to being low-income (63 percent of charter students versus 48 percent of public school students), to being African-American (28 percent of charter students versus 16 percent of public school students) or to being Hispanic (28 percent of charter students versus 23 percent of public school students).

In addition, 2.9 percent of charter school students are Native American, while the comparable figure is 1.1 percent of students in the public schools. Asian students comprise 3.6 percent of charter students and 4.6 percent of public school students. Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
students are 0.6 percent of charter students and 0.3 percent of public school students.

Why is intellectual honesty so hard for you guys? Are you just misinformed or intentionally trying to paint the wrong picture? Afraid of a little competition?

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:52 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

That's exactly the problem.

I thought the problem was institutional racism at charter schools? Which is it?

Please pay attention. The problem with charter schools is that they don't have to take everyone. For this reason, they are allowed to discriminate. Since we live in a country that has a very dark history in racism, it is more susceptible to the practice.

More incoherent ramblings of a doofus that wears racist glasses. Hey Fit - don't forget that Charters get paid by the student - the color they most see is green.

With that said, if I were running a private charter school I wouldn't put up with a kid that was disruptive.

You can't make me believe that someone that get's paid by the student is going to kick out money in the bank because they are black.

(03-22-2016 03:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

Another BS statement from a leftist.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Ww&cad=rja

Quote:Contrary to the impression some have that charters “cream” more advantaged students from traditional public schools, a majority of charter school students are non-white, or minority students. Only 45 percent of charter students are white, while 52.5 percent of public school
students are white. Figure 6 provides key demographic comparisons between charter students and public school students based on the charter survey results and the most recently available data for public school students from the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education. The populations of charter students and public school students appear to be comparable with respect to special education status, the proportion of English language learners, and gi"ed and talented students. Charter students are somewhat more likely to qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch due to being low-income (63 percent of charter students versus 48 percent of public school students), to being African-American (28 percent of charter students versus 16 percent of public school students) or to being Hispanic (28 percent of charter students versus 23 percent of public school students).

In addition, 2.9 percent of charter school students are Native American, while the comparable figure is 1.1 percent of students in the public schools. Asian students comprise 3.6 percent of charter students and 4.6 percent of public school students. Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
students are 0.6 percent of charter students and 0.3 percent of public school students.

Why is intellectual honesty so hard for you guys? Are you just misinformed or intentionally trying to paint the wrong picture? Afraid of a little competition?

I could be incorrect on that , thinking of particular charter schools. I'm just trying to figure out why charter schools would be any better than non-charter schools (note - I don't follow this story closely). Do they have more money? Are they lucky in their hiring of teachers? Are they in better areas? Does it take some work for parents to get their kids in there (thus selecting for parents who give a crap)?

(03-22-2016 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Charter schools do better (to the extent that they actually do) because they don't have to take just anybody. They have better students on average, therefore they do better. If you took the whole public school population and sent them to similar charter schools, I bet the overall education would not improve.

Another BS statement from a leftist.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Ww&cad=rja

Quote:Contrary to the impression some have that charters “cream” more advantaged students from traditional public schools, a majority of charter school students are non-white, or minority students. Only 45 percent of charter students are white, while 52.5 percent of public school
students are white. Figure 6 provides key demographic comparisons between charter students and public school students based on the charter survey results and the most recently available data for public school students from the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education. The populations of charter students and public school students appear to be comparable with respect to special education status, the proportion of English language learners, and gi"ed and talented students. Charter students are somewhat more likely to qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch due to being low-income (63 percent of charter students versus 48 percent of public school students), to being African-American (28 percent of charter students versus 16 percent of public school students) or to being Hispanic (28 percent of charter students versus 23 percent of public school students).

In addition, 2.9 percent of charter school students are Native American, while the comparable figure is 1.1 percent of students in the public schools. Asian students comprise 3.6 percent of charter students and 4.6 percent of public school students. Hawaiian and Pacific Islander
students are 0.6 percent of charter students and 0.3 percent of public school students.

Why is intellectual honesty so hard for you guys? Are you just misinformed or intentionally trying to paint the wrong picture? Afraid of a little competition?

I could be incorrect on that , thinking of particular charter schools. I'm just trying to figure out why charter schools would be any better than non-charter schools (note - I don't follow this story closely). Do they have more money? Are they lucky in their hiring of teachers? Are they in better areas? Does it take some work for parents to get their kids in there (thus selecting for parents who give a crap)?

A couple of easy reasons:

1. These kids parents have to make an effort to enroll them in a Charter in the first place which translates into "they care more from the start".

2. Charters don't have to put up with the disruptive behavior to the degree that the publics do - if a student is too disruptive, they likely can banish them back to their home public. This means better discipline in the classroom which generally leads to more learning.