Because often times schools are failing because of the people going there, and introducing them to new schools ends up causing problems for the new school. I have personal experience with this. The problem isn't "school choice ", it's demographics. But you can't talk about that because there might be one Mexican kid who would do better even if it brings down 80% of the kids at the new school.
What makes people think they're going to put some low iq kid who is violent and has parents who don't care into a nice school and he's magically going to change. And that's how it ALWAYS ends up. There's this fairy tale thinking that the SMART parents are going to pull their kids and move them, but that's not real. The reason these schools are bad in the first place is BECAUSE of the people.
I was forced into a mixed high-school because of school choice and it became one of the lowest performance schools in the state, with increased violence and metal detectors after one year.
They imported 2 low performance black kids into my kid's private school class on A "disadvantaged " scholarship and they're a constant disruption and already have made the class "slow down" for them.
It's like people who think if we just take south Chicago and put it in Beverly Hills then suddenly all the problems with south Chicago wouldn't manifest. It's magical thinking. Even poor white kids have better SAT scores than black kids in high income households.
Last summer I read Sowel's book on Charter schools, he has a ton of data in there, quite interesting. My take from it was this. Basically discipline work ;) unlike normal school successful charters can and do kick violent kids out. In many cases if you get rid of the worst 10% rest can do very well. That and being able to fire useless teachers not he spot.
I think you are right that with school where kids can not get kicked out and discipline is not enforced it is basically all based on people going there. Once school can actually act as a school things change quite a bit
Because often times schools are failing because of the people going there, and introducing them to new schools ends up causing problems for the new school. I have personal experience with this. The problem isn't "school choice ", it's demographics. But you can't talk about that because there might be one Mexican kid who would do better even if it brings down 80% of the kids at the new school.
What makes people think they're going to put some low iq kid who is violent and has parents who don't care into a nice school and he's magically going to change. And that's how it ALWAYS ends up. There's this fairy tale thinking that the SMART parents are going to pull their kids and move them, but that's not real. The reason these schools are bad in the first place is BECAUSE of the people.
I was forced into a mixed high-school because of school choice and it became one of the lowest performance schools in the state, with increased violence and metal detectors after one year.
They imported 2 low performance black kids into my kid's private school class on A "disadvantaged " scholarship and they're a constant disruption and already have made the class "slow down" for them.
It's like people who think if we just take south Chicago and put it in Beverly Hills then suddenly all the problems with south Chicago wouldn't manifest. It's magical thinking. Even poor white kids have better SAT scores than black kids in high income households.
Last summer I read Sowel's book on Charter schools, he has a ton of data in there, quite interesting. My take from it was this. Basically discipline work ;) unlike normal school successful charters can and do kick violent kids out. In many cases if you get rid of the worst 10% rest can do very well. That and being able to fire useless teachers not he spot.
I think you are right that with school where kids can not get kicked out and discipline is not enforced it is basically all based on people going there. Once school can actually act as a school things change quite a bit