(03-22-2016 03:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(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.

So you don't have a problem with a school system that is simply looking to make a profit rather than actually teaching children?

(03-22-2016 01:46 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 01:37 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 01:21 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 11:59 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 11:47 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I already acknowledged that. Let's see how long it takes you to acknowledge that it was never proven that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

I never made any such claim. The evidence suggested that Zimmerman's story of Martin being on top attacking him when Zimmerman shot him was accurate, as well as a witness saying Martin attacked Zimmerman. Nothing more, nothing less.

Care to get back on topic or do you want to continue to needlessly derail this thread?

I made this thread. I'm not the one who derailed it.

Right, because your assertion that Martin was shot for eating skittles (Post #119) has everything to do with why black kids are getting into trouble at some charter schools.

I mistakenly exaggerated the circumstances of that event which opened the door for someone else to fixate on that and thus change the subject.

Mistakenly?!?

A mistake is turning down the wrong side street in a new area.

Doing the same thing, over and over and over again- purposefully and intentionally trolling threads just the derail them, then play the "dumb" shtick, is not a mistake. Once, maybe. Dozens and dozens of times? Errrrr, no.

(03-22-2016 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(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.

Thank you. #1 I kinda figured, so in a way they do get better students simply due to that factor. Students with parents who care. #2, if home public schools can't do the same thing, then you once again have an easier situation for the charter schools. I think under these conditions, public schools would do better as well.

(03-22-2016 03:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

So you don't have a problem with a school system that is simply looking to make a profit rather than actually teaching children?

Sounds like you have described every inner city public school district in the Atlanta area! Profit for the school board and friends.

(03-22-2016 03:50 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:32 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

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

(03-22-2016 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

So you don't have a problem with a school system that is simply looking to make a profit rather than actually teaching children?

No dummy. I was addressing your theory that Charter schools kick black kids out because they are black. It had nothing to do with if they taught kids or not - it had a lot to do with "Why would they kick kids out when they get paid by the number of students they have attending".

If you don't think publics keep track of number of students (they get state funding on a per pupil basis as well) attending, you really don't have a clue of how this all works.

All schools - public, charter, private get funds based on number of students attending............

(03-22-2016 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(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.

Thank you. #1 I kinda figured, so in a way they do get better students simply due to that factor. Students with parents who care. #2, if home public schools can't do the same thing, then you once again have an easier situation for the charter schools. I think under these conditions, public schools would do better as well.

Traditional publics have to serve those within their district that show up.

Frankly, eliminating corporal punishment has made all these at risk schools worse off. I know that corporal punishment isn't in vogue with the younger generation, but what it did do was keep kids that were prone to act up in line WITHOUT SUSPENDING THEM.

Think about it............ a good many of these kids that get into trouble and are disruptive don't really want to be in school in the first place. Suspensions or expulsion is right up their alley - they get to not go to school.........and for a lot of these kids, graduating isn't a big focus. When you could paddle them for acting up - all they got was a red ass and sent back to their seat in the classroom to finish the day. They didn't get to go home or stay home and run the streets - they were still at school...

I'm of the firm belief that there is a percentage of kids that are beyond reaching - I don't know the exact %, but it's likely in the 5%-10% range in these at risk schools. IMO, these schools would be better off expelling these kids and the other 90% or whatever would get the message. In today's world, we screw around and try and "save them all" and end up poisoning the school with bad apples. Now - all the kids suffer..........................

(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)?

1. Some of them get outside donations which gives them more money.
2. Most pay more attention to hiring as they aren't trying to fill hundreds or thousands of vacancies.
3. Because of their setup, they often get better teachers on average.
4. They are usually not in better areas.
5. There is usually a lottery process so "better" parents tend to be selected.
6. They are normally one school, not a massive bureaucracy with 100-200,000 students which spends a lot of money on bureaucracy and doesn't pay attention to individual students.
7. They can be innovative and tailor curriculum to service their target market.

On the down side, some of the operators are not very experienced, lack certain expertise that a larger district has, some have less resources and all are more dependent on individuals (principal, board members) for their success than schools in a larger district.

Got to love it.

Thread started by the board's pre-eminent race-baiting troll claiming racism falls on it's face. Said race-baiting troll tries to derail thread with totally unrelated George Zimmerman comparison and it also falls on it's face. Now said race-baiting troll is trying to derail the thread again and it's falling flat on it's face as well. That's a fit-fail at it's finest.

(03-22-2016 04:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:23 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Another BS statement from a leftist.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...Ww&cad=rja


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.

Thank you. #1 I kinda figured, so in a way they do get better students simply due to that factor. Students with parents who care. #2, if home public schools can't do the same thing, then you once again have an easier situation for the charter schools. I think under these conditions, public schools would do better as well.

Traditional publics have to serve those within their district that show up.

Frankly, eliminating corporal punishment has made all these at risk schools worse off. I know that corporal punishment isn't in vogue with the younger generation, but what it did do was keep kids that were prone to act up in line WITHOUT SUSPENDING THEM.

Think about it............ a good many of these kids that get into trouble and are disruptive don't really want to be in school in the first place. Suspensions or expulsion is right up their alley - they get to not go to school.........and for a lot of these kids, graduating isn't a big focus. When you could paddle them for acting up - all they got was a red ass and sent back to their seat in the classroom to finish the day. They didn't get to go home or stay home and run the streets - they were still at school...

I'm of the firm belief that there is a percentage of kids that are beyond reaching - I don't know the exact %, but it's likely in the 5%-10% range in these at risk schools. IMO, these schools would be better off expelling these kids and the other 90% or whatever would get the message. In today's world, we screw around and try and "save them all" and end up poisoning the school with bad apples. Now - all the kids suffer..........................

Can't really disagree. Though I don't know that corporal punishment would work in high school. At that point you have to send them to detention or something. And like you said, a certain percentage you probably can't do anything with them.

(03-22-2016 04:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 04:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  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.

Thank you. #1 I kinda figured, so in a way they do get better students simply due to that factor. Students with parents who care. #2, if home public schools can't do the same thing, then you once again have an easier situation for the charter schools. I think under these conditions, public schools would do better as well.

Traditional publics have to serve those within their district that show up.

Frankly, eliminating corporal punishment has made all these at risk schools worse off. I know that corporal punishment isn't in vogue with the younger generation, but what it did do was keep kids that were prone to act up in line WITHOUT SUSPENDING THEM.

Think about it............ a good many of these kids that get into trouble and are disruptive don't really want to be in school in the first place. Suspensions or expulsion is right up their alley - they get to not go to school.........and for a lot of these kids, graduating isn't a big focus. When you could paddle them for acting up - all they got was a red ass and sent back to their seat in the classroom to finish the day. They didn't get to go home or stay home and run the streets - they were still at school...

I'm of the firm belief that there is a percentage of kids that are beyond reaching - I don't know the exact %, but it's likely in the 5%-10% range in these at risk schools. IMO, these schools would be better off expelling these kids and the other 90% or whatever would get the message. In today's world, we screw around and try and "save them all" and end up poisoning the school with bad apples. Now - all the kids suffer..........................

Can't really disagree. Though I don't know that corporal punishment would work in high school. At that point you have to send them to detention or something. And like you said, a certain percentage you probably can't do anything with them.

Good, respectful behavior is typically taught and learned faaaar before HS. As is disrespectful, poor behavior.

Get to them early, often and with real consequence and you'll have far fewer of some of these animals currently roaming the halls of our government baby-sitting services.

(03-22-2016 04:45 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 04:36 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 04:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:41 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 03:35 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  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.

Thank you. #1 I kinda figured, so in a way they do get better students simply due to that factor. Students with parents who care. #2, if home public schools can't do the same thing, then you once again have an easier situation for the charter schools. I think under these conditions, public schools would do better as well.

Traditional publics have to serve those within their district that show up.

Frankly, eliminating corporal punishment has made all these at risk schools worse off. I know that corporal punishment isn't in vogue with the younger generation, but what it did do was keep kids that were prone to act up in line WITHOUT SUSPENDING THEM.

Think about it............ a good many of these kids that get into trouble and are disruptive don't really want to be in school in the first place. Suspensions or expulsion is right up their alley - they get to not go to school.........and for a lot of these kids, graduating isn't a big focus. When you could paddle them for acting up - all they got was a red ass and sent back to their seat in the classroom to finish the day. They didn't get to go home or stay home and run the streets - they were still at school...

I'm of the firm belief that there is a percentage of kids that are beyond reaching - I don't know the exact %, but it's likely in the 5%-10% range in these at risk schools. IMO, these schools would be better off expelling these kids and the other 90% or whatever would get the message. In today's world, we screw around and try and "save them all" and end up poisoning the school with bad apples. Now - all the kids suffer..........................

Can't really disagree. Though I don't know that corporal punishment would work in high school. At that point you have to send them to detention or something. And like you said, a certain percentage you probably can't do anything with them.

Actually, you would be surprised - but it does. Another alternative would be in-school suspension after school or on Saturday - want to act a fool during school, good - you can stay AT SCHOOL longer.

With the in-school stuff, you can get into logistical problems, etc. though. It's easy to say that mom has to arrange a way home, etc. etc., but remember - often times mom can't take care of herself let alone junior............

(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)?

Generally speaking the parents must stay involved, grades must be made and very little gov't/ union meddling (<10% of teachers are union).

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-22-2016 04:39 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Got to love it.

Thread started by the board's pre-eminent race-baiting troll claiming racism falls on it's face. Said race-baiting troll tries to derail thread with totally unrelated George Zimmerman comparison and it also falls on it's face. Now said race-baiting troll is trying to derail the thread again and it's falling flat on it's face as well. That's a fit-fail at it's finest.

And the spineless mods will keep putting up with his blatant trolling. If he isn't trolling he is a complete ******* idiot and deserves to be treated as such.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

What 'major' country doesn't have a dark history of racism/nationalism/segregation/discrimination etc.

Many animals are guilty of this same sort of thing as well

(03-22-2016 05:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

What 'major' country doesn't have a dark history of racism/nationalism/segregation/discrimination etc.

Many animals are guilty of this same sort of thing as well

Fit has demonstrated the exact reason why we will never be able to move beyond the darkest part of our history. People will continue to use it for their own gain, whether political, or monetary.

What was does not necessarily dictate what is or is to come in this case.

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

Can you explain how a random selection lottery can discriminate?

(03-22-2016 05:46 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 05:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

What 'major' country doesn't have a dark history of racism/nationalism/segregation/discrimination etc.

Many animals are guilty of this same sort of thing as well

Fit has demonstrated the exact reason why we will never be able to move beyond the darkest part of our history. People will continue to use it for their own gain, whether political, or monetary.

What was does not necessarily dictate what is or is to come in this case.

"...and let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Fit doesn't know what he's doing-he knows exactly what he's doing! Fit is undertaking a systematic effort to change this message board; to make this spin room more like the rest of the internet. That's why he started this thread and some other thread and a thread before that and the deal with Iran. It is a systematic effort to change the spin room. When I'm moderator of this message board, we are going to re-embrace all the things that made the spin room the greatest nation in the world, and we are going to leave our children what they deserve: the single greatest spin room in the history of the internet."

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

Lots of logical disconnects there.

(03-22-2016 06:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

Lots of logical disconnects there.

(03-22-2016 06:09 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(03-22-2016 02:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  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.

Can you explain how a random selection lottery can discriminate?

If not you can count on him trying to derail his own thread for a third time.