charter school co-locations in crown heights/prospect heights??

You should continue to speak up.

It think you get at the crux of the matter here:

We can even hold views about what would be ideal, while doing something that we understand is not - I just care that people have the information and understand the effects of what they are doing.

As you mention above, the charter schools presently have an advantage over the traditional public schools because their public funding is supplemented by powerful donors.

As a result, in the immediate term, many charter schools look more attractive from an aesthetic point of view. The fear of many is that between now and when the funders move on to a sexier cause, the funding for traditional schools will be gutted. Teaching will return to being a profession the is incredibly underpaid, yada, yada, yada.

If these fears come true, pubic schools will be worse off in the long term.

However, this argument is a tough sell to a parent.

You see, at their core, many are not concerned about what happens to OTHER peoples children IN THE FUTURE. ...understandably, they are often most concerned what happens to THEIR child IN THE PRESENT.

As homeowner states, it puts parents in the position of making moral decisions. In this case, the decision may be "Which role should take precedence? My obligations to my child as a parent, or my obligations to all children as a citizen?"

I think humanity has struggled with decisions about "foregoing self interest to advance the interests of a group" since the beginning of time, and the decision re: where to send your kids to school in NYC is just one incarnation of it.

Life is full of tough choices, and having to make choices like this (or having choices framed this way by people with agendas) is but one of the reasons I've decided to be the parent of a dog instead of a child.

P.S. While charter schools may be able to convince parents that they provide better academics to students, the city is also watching how they are managing their finances.

They recently closed a charter chain: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/final_bell_for_inept_charter_dSOGtIkLUovmIDZJg3eB2H#ixzz1r4dJCDm1

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Chairperson: Sharon Wedderburn

Meeting Day: 3rd Wednesday of the month

Time: 7:00 PM

Place: Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation

727 Classon Avenue bet. Park Place and Prospect Place)

Responsibilities include the following:

Establish liaison/linkages with community schools in order to improve school operations and support educations priorities

Help advocate the adequate allocation of revenue for school services

Develop a networking relationship with the district's parochial, proprietary schools, and colleges

Assist schools in getting needed City services and funding

The next meeting of Community Board 8's Education Cmte. will be held on May 16, 2012.



At the last meeting there was a presentation on the Coalition for Educational Justice. The content dealt heavily with community empowerment, and getting the public schools to perform as they should.

From my experience, public schools work; all that is necessary is a principal who is dedicated to his/her staff, loves children, and is able to motivate the ENTIRE staff to work towards the nurturing and education of their charges. Key with this is strong parental involvement. Charter schools seem to demand these as prerequisites. All that is necessary for public schools to succeed are the same things. The only thing thwarting public schools success is ultimately the mandate that they MUST attempt to teach every child who is brought to them, regardless of their educational level when they are received. That is largely not true for charter schools.

My experiences with education are somewhat different from yours, whynot_31. You haven't identified what grade level these students are at and which educational institution this occurred at. With a strong teacher and the support of a strong administration, this situation would have been defused and disassembled. I don't know at what point of the school year this video was made. If it is September, then the staff has the evidence to weed out the students who need to be placed in another type of institution. The students who are borderline or are too weak to admit that they would like to learn, can still be reached. If this video was taken later than October, then the staff has failed the students who are acting out, and most of all, has failed the students who are trying to learn inspite of the constant distractions.

I suspect this is a middle school environment, which by any teachers estimation is the hardest group to reach because of all of the challenges that a throng of pubescent students present.

The students who are harder to teach than others usually occur because of the afore-mentioned "social promotion" and/or lack of educational nurturance in earlier grades. There is no identification if this is a class that is meant to deal with students who have previously slipped through the cracks.

As for blame (of that type of environment) there is usually enough to go around.

As for my wife and myself, we somehow managed to raise three sentient, literate, open-minded children in the SAME community as the students who you are using as an example. What was done by us was PARENTING. Respect for education started as soon as we brought them home from the hospital. Nurturance was disseminated at home, in church, and at any family gathering we attended. Friends houses were not immune from being sites of guidance, education, and teaching social skills. Every opportunity was taken to enrich the children, and often at a sacrifice of their parents. THIS IS NO LONGER THE NORM IN OUR SOCIETY. THE SELFISHNESS OF ADULTS IS PERVASIVE; IT CROSSES ALL SOCIO-ECONOMIC LINES.

With a look on YouTube, the video you loaded was made more than three (3) years ago. So by now, who knows where those students are?

The students in the public and middle schools now are the issue. What can be done to create the proper environment for them to learn in?

Charter schools, alone, are not the answer.

Yes, without effective parenting, youth are at a huge disadvantage. That said, my frame of reference doesn't cover a long enough time span that I will argue that parents are less effective at creating "active, motivated learners" than the past.

I merely posted the film because I find it to be too typical of the level of control (ie power) that public teachers have over their classrooms; the "learning environment".

....in my view, many teachers, administrators and parents are forced to accept such environments because they believe they have no other options, and/or are not willing to endure the wrath that comes from parents and the "system" from trying to place a disruptive kid in Special Ed.

There also may be less resources (counseling, testing, etc) available to help youth, teachers, and parents than there were in the past, so their only real choice is exclusion (ie special education). What was the last resort, may now be the ONLY resort. ...which sucks.

Can a student learn in such an environment? Yes, there are kids in the background doing their work, and.many of us have our own experiences (and those of our coworkers, friends, daughters, sons, etc) as evidence that such settings came be overcome.

I think the better questions are "should a youth have to learn in such environment?", "should parents, teachers and students have to defy the odds?"

....are charter schools the answer? No, the problem is WAY too complex to have a single answer. I simply argue that Charter schools are in vogue because they benefit from the myth that disruptive students, and inattentive parents have been effectively excluded.

I am not an opponent of charter schools because I believe people should be able to believe things I do not. I'd need to meet the staff, parents and students of a specific charter school before I was willing to say it was "better" than my local public school.

Broad paint brushes don't work as a tool for painting charter schools, nor do they work for public ones. ....but paint we shall.

Returning to the subject of Charter Schools...

This NYT article puts a thoughtful spin on the issue as it points out that, so far, the charter school movement has failed to be a source of racial integration.

...it points out that white children don't live in the areas that the charter schools draw from, and/or have "already" left the local public schools by going to private schools (not charters).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/education/at-explore-charter-school-a-portrait-of-segregated-education.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

While racial integration is an interesting topic and pursuit, I'd like someone to write a follow-up article that examines whether charter schools actually further economic and class segregation without respect to race.

To what degree are local charter schools being used by families with characteristics that are different than zoned public schools?

Employed caregivers?

two parent households?

caregiver with more education?

greater incomes?

longer work history?

etc.

Yes, such dialogue is refreshing. In my mind, it gets to approach the crux of the issue:

-To what degree does everyone (regardless of their race, income, family status, religion, etc) want their children to be around people who are similar?

-At what point do such preferences become a "problem" vs a "benefit"?

Clearly, the answers will vary by individual.

Above, I argue that parents embrace the Charter school movement because they believe that they are avoiding a segment of the population that would potentially "bring their child down".

Because they are trying to predict "future effects", such decisions are necessarily based on beliefs, not facts. ...which is a nice way of saying preconceived notions, or (gasp) stereotypes.

However, I do not think of parents who send their kids to charter schools in a negative light, because they are doing what they genuinely believe to be best for their child. I respect their choice.

...in the case of the charter school examined by the NYT, I believe the black parents who have enrolled their children in the charter school (as opposed sending their children to the zoned public school) did so based on the belief that "negative influences" are reduced. They can't afford to move to a wealthier neighborhood with even better options, so they settle for a charter school because it is perceived as the best option available to them.

Now, let's talk about the white parents the NYT alludes to. The NYT points out that these white parents and students are absent from the charter school as well as the zoned school, and points out that this is a factor of neighborhood makeup, which is closely tied to income. I'd like to go deeper and "riskier" than the NYT, and state that I believe that the white parents are absent as a result of the same beliefs that drive the black charter school parents: "negative influences" are reduced.

However, unlike the black parents, they have greater means. In today's NYC and America, this often means that they will live in a environment where there isn't a lot of meaningful "mixing" in terms of race, class, and other demographics.

My cousins seem to be an exception. They are white, and live in a mostly black, upper income, professional suburb of Atlanta, GA. They send their kids to the zoned public school without hesitation. ...they believe negative influences to be largely absent.

However, as Clayfilms alludes, it would be silly to lump my cousins into a simplistic label, like "pro-integration". After all, they only want their kids to be around youth very much like themselves.

Yet, by some, they are believed to be "good people", while parents who send their kids to Charter Schools and private schools are believed to be "bad".

In the division, one group is believed to be a force that furthers the present divide, and the other group is perceived as bringing us all together.

It's silly when you think about it.

Xlizellx-

It is sad that the schools (be them charter or zoned), have embraced such questionable curriculums. In addition to appealing to the fears/hopes of parents, they are also desperate to show academic success to avoid closure. Yes, like you, I believe true education (and even "childhood") is sacrificed as a result of such pressures.

I think avoiding such pressures, and being able to give their child some "agency" over the learning environment are a big part of why people of means (be them of whatever race/hue) sacrifice luxuries to pay for private school. As you are aware, the situation in NYC is so dire that lots of people move out of the city, or get fake addresses in better zones because they are not willing or able to come up with the $ required for a private school.

Using the same criteria as you, they find there is no charter or zoned schools that will give their child an education; the choices they offer is either "chartered boot camps" or "zoned chaos".

Oh, and the other thing I've been considering is homeschooling. I never would have thought it possible, or a good idea. With enough kids co-operative style, it might be a good option for a few years until I can get a higher earning job in order to afford private school.

xlizellx said:

I read that NYT article and the ones linked to it about segregated schools. As someone who taught in East Flatbush - with not a white person around - who now teaches in a United Colors of Benetton ad looking school in the East Village, I have seen both sides.

I would not send my kids to many of the area's schools not because of race - but because of my philosophy on how to teach/treat children. I will not send my kids to a school with uniforms. Or a school that does test prep during the day. Or one where the kids have no agency. Or one with scripted curriculums based on billion dollar companies and not kids needs and interests. I won't send them to a school that doesn't encourage play. Or imagination.

And in my experience (4 schools in both districts 17 and 18) that is the rule, not the exception, of many schools in the area. I have friends who taught at PS22 (now closing) who tell similar stories of a non-democratic learning environment that stifles creativity.

I will be that "drop of cream" if I know the school holds similar educational beliefs as me.

dag i spoke to a kindergarten teacher at a charter school in brooklyn who expressed the EXACT same sentiment to me last night. not only are the kids not able to learn in a healthy environment, but the teachers are frustrated and burnt out...hence the high turnover.

DNA Info published an article today on charter schools coming to CH:

Hipsters aren’t the only ones competing over Crown Heights real estate this spring — schools have joined the bidding war, as the Department of Education mulls applications from four new charters vying for space in Brooklyn’s District 17.

KIPP AMP, Success Academy Brooklyn, Explore Envision and Achievement First-AF Aspire are all seeking new space or expansions in District 17 for the 2013-14 school year, according to the DOE. Only Brooklyn’s District 14 in Williamsburg and Greenpoint currently has as many applicants, and only that district has as many existing charters.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120516/crown-heights/charter-schools-crowd-into-crown-heights

Homeowner-

Not to be too depressing, but I don't believe a system could ever be constructed that was able to be equally accessed/navigated by all members of our society: Some subsets will always be better at advocating for their kids than others.

In my view, the widespread advent of Charter schools may (...or may not...) make the "average parent" more able to pick a school that is right for their child. The answer would depend upon the other schools in the area, the nature of the neighborhood being served, and many other factors.

As someone who doesn't have a kid, I have the luxury of wondering whether being able to cream is a net gain to society.

Educators have long argued that by excluding some kids, the remaining students are able to learn. The speech has always made a lot of sense to me.

Somewhat ironically, the teachers seem to be changing their long held speech simply because non-union workers will be hired.

It is admittedly out of vogue (aka not politically correct) to state that society often gains from exclusion, but to a point, we do.

At what point have we excluded too many people?

To what degree can we exclude people before we actually create more of a hazard than we cure?

At this point, charter schools don't reach my definition of a hazard.

As they become more widespread, the future remains to be seen.