To Increase Equity, School Districts Eliminate Honors Classes

[Professor Emeritus]

I know very well what I'm talking about.

And yet you've repeatedly made a claim that EVERY single educational researcher or charter school expert would disagree with. And when I've asked you to substantiate these claims, you've provided no evidence to back them. So why should I take you seriously?

I already told you, if you don't believe me, then ask an authority on the subject you trust. Any authority. I'm done trying to argue with someone who insists up is down.

Yes, there is a teacher shortage. That doesn't mean incompetent teachers should keep their jobs.

So they should be fired and replaced with....no one?

Charter schools attract more teachers because they hire people who don't necessarily have education degrees and some attract people to the profession with higher wages.

Every inner-city school in the nation is already hiring teachers without education degrees. I really don't think you have researched this issue seriously - you're just trying to push talking points that support your beliefs.

Also, teachers aren't fired because they have nobody to replace them with. The biggest reason they aren't fired is because its a litigation process that takes years and is very expensive.

As I already pointed out to you, that process only applies to teachers with full credentials + enough years of service to gain tenure. The bulk of teachers in the worst-performing schools don't even fit into that category.

No one who works in the lowest-performing schools would say, "All we need to do to get better is be able to fire more teachers." Many of these schools have turnover of 30-40% year-to-year and multiple positions open at all times. I should know, I've worked in schools like that. Your "solution" wouldn't do jack shyt for such a school, which is why I really don't take your position on the subject seriously.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

LOL that is classic TLR. You whine about dumbing down education and then bytch about a two-paragraph "dissertation."

Guess what - educational policy is complex and takes a lot to get right. Reactionary, impulsive answers are always wrong. This shyt is my life's work so I have put in the work to come up with meaningful answers. I'm sorry that it takes more than 144 characters to effectively explain educational policy.

And I have NEVER advocated for dumbing down education. My argument is that we should be raising the level of education for everyone, not siphoning off a tiny elite to learn right and fukking over all the rest. I can promise you that in my own classrooms, I can teach to the entire class and you would struggle to find any gifted kids who felt I "dumbed down" the material - a good teacher knows how to challenge everyone while facilitating improvement for even the lowest ability students at the same time.






Do you know what the model minority myth is? It's the claim that the system is working just fine because a few kids succeed, and thus use their existence as an excuse not to reform the system. I don't call the kids "model minorities", I criticize the people who use that myth as a wedge in order to fukk over everyone else.






I DO look for those solutions, do you not realize that is what my participation in this entire thread is about? I've described the solutions in detail while most of the other folk are either saying "fukk dem kids" or a vague "do better black people." And I've pointed out at least 3 times that one of the main solutions is keeping the "uninterested kids" exposed to other children who have it down better, rather than tracking immediately and then eliminating any positive role models from their lives right off the bat.

I agree with you

Government will never do that tho

School system is one of the biggest indicators thar America is fukked up

So I understand why Black parents want their kids to have a chance by going to a setting where they won't be disrupted

 

[Elle Seven]

Since becoming an adult, my question has been why is education *tiered* in the public school system as the norm? What I mean is why is there even an option to offer some children a more "rigorous" type of education, in the same building, as the other children? Why are all children not held to the same rigorous standard from the gate? Another question is why do we think it is okay to challenge some students and not others if the purpose of the system is, presumably, to turn out a great product (i.e. a person capable of thinking creatively, critically, responsibly and communally)?

I'm saying this as someone who was a child in all those honor classes, magnet program and AP courses when I was still in school years ago. Some of us thought we were smarter than the students who were not on the college prep track, but standardized tests results would often reveal some of the most popular troublemakers - at least by test standards- were actually way *smarter* than us. These were folks who might stayed in fights or were getting suspended as well.

Teachers would deal with us all, but when it came to pushing for getting ready for college, the guidance counselors really only seemed to focus on the children in my group - though there was evidence there were other students who could have greatly benefited the from their attention as well.

As an adult now, I wonder if many of the students in my group got so much attention because of their parents' involvement and contributions. And this was a public school in Atlanta in the 90s - not a private or charter school. My mother was not particularly involved in school politics, but I benefited just the same from being associated with the college prep group.

A lot of us were not exceptionally smart, either, if I'm honest - our GPAs looked great on paper though. What I mean is that getting good grades is not evidence of a student's intelligence - something I understand now but did not then. I wonder if some parents just wanted further segregation of their children within the school; the college prep route did offer that.

My school received the school of excellence award each year and sat right down the street from a large housing project. We were known as a hood high school full of smart hood kids (our rival was in the siddity part of town and had hella smart students too). Our principal ran the place like Joe Clark and wanted good for ALL of us, but when it came to helping some folks get opportunities, it seemed like some people who had the power to make that happen didnt always do that for eveyone. Should we not all have been held to the same high standard and given a fair shot though?

When I read this story, a lot of things came to mind. I'd just say to any black person who wants to better understand the American school system period, Google "the 6 purposes of compulsory schooling by John Taylor Gatto". This is a white man asserting this about why American schooling as we know it exists, and he is talking to a, presumably, white audience. Minorities need to take heed because we are in the same system.

Additionally, look into books by Dr. Amos Wilson to further learn why the education we as black people get at any of these schools is problematic for our community particularly. In essence, education offered to the masses helps young people to perpetuate and maintain life as we already know it. If we truly want something different, we will have to do something different.

 

[Suge Shot Me]

Rhakim,

You've made some good points, and it's interesting to have the input of someone who has worked in education.

Isn't one of the elephants in the room with charter schools, especially in the inner city, that parents want to keep their kids away from kids who are not just low performing, but also disruptive, and even violent? Parents who have concerns for their children's safety will not be sympathetic to your desire to keep them in public schools to help the lower-performing kids learn.

 

[sayyestothis]

This is why private school exists.

fukk letting public domain figure shyt out in the benefit of my kids

 

[ISO]

And yet you've repeatedly made a claim that EVERY single educational researcher or charter school expert would disagree with. And when I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate these claims, you've provided no evidence to back them. So why should I take you seriously?

I already told you, if you don't believe me, then ask an authority on the subject you trust. Any authority. I'm done trying to argue with someone who insists up is down.






So they should be fired and replaced with....no one?






Every inner-city school in the nation is already hiring teachers without education degrees. I really don't think you have researched this issue seriously - you're just trying to push talking points that support your beliefs.






As I already pointed out to you, that process only applies to teachers with full credentials + enough years of service to gain tenure. The bulk of teachers in the worst-performing schools don't even fit into that category.

No one who works in the lowest-performing schools would say, "All we need to do to get better is be able to fire more teachers." Many of these schools have turnover of 30-40% year-to-year and multiple positions open at all times. I should know, I've worked in schools like that. Your "solution" wouldn't do jack shyt for such a school, which is why I really don't take your position on the subject seriously.

You are not reading my posts. I provided you with a hyperlink showing test results between charters, city-wide public schools, and state-wide public schools in New York in 2019. What educational researchers and charter school "experts"? People who have been lobbied or have vested interest in pushing the narrative against charter schools? Disingenuous flawed data sets that don't take all considerations. I've seen educational researchers compare public schools nationwide to charter schools in order to show there isn't a gap without taking into fukking consideration that charter school enrollment is almost entirely minority which is not the case for nationwide public school enrollment.

This is the FACT. NYC charter schools with 100% minority enrollment and practically all students below the poverty line and with a difference of .8% in language learners and disabled students are vastly outperforming NYC public schools as a whole, especially destroying the schools they share buildings with in the same community with similar demographics with less per pupil spending, and even outperform some public schools in affluent white areas. In 2013, the 5th graders of Success Academy outperformed everyone in the state, that is major, an achievement that should be upheld and not critiqued with nonsensical talking points.

The argument that charters are self-selected does not hold up because as it has been explained to you the lottery draws from the very same community, the lottery is law mandated, and the charter schools here don't have the money or space to enroll everyone, on top of that the unions and politicians are purposefully preventing charter schools from accessing real estate. They are preferring to protect their interests, adult interests, over the education of thousands of children. To you somehow this is all a charade on the part of charters who are handpicking students (wrong) in order to keep their test scores high while they manage community tax dollars, it almost sounds sinister.

In NYC they aren't hiring teachers without education degrees, what they do hire is teachers who have completed a college education program but may not have passed their certification exams. People trying to be teachers who can't pass content specialty exams or the edTPA which is a test that measures pedagogical processes in the student teaching experience. People who arguably should not be teachers although not all are terrible and some have intangibles that make them effective. Despite that they still have to eventually gain those certifications including a master's degree within 5 years to remain employed. Its either that or pulling people who went through alternative pipeline programs but ultimately you have to be certified and have a master's degree in education to be a teacher here for the long run.

Lol no my man, most teacher's here as long as they've been teaching 3-4 years gain tenure. There are teachers who may be denied on their first tenure application but eventually they will get it. Meaning that a large portion of teachers do have tenure and can go through that process. Also, even firing a non-tenured teacher here would be extremely difficult. Again this is my local context but it also appears to be yours too and teachers can be considered for tenure even earlier than in NYC.

In California, a public school teacher can be fired at any time without cause during the first two years of employment. After that, however, about 98 percent of teachers manage to attain tenure—or, more accurately, “permanence.” Principals make tenure decisions in March of a teacher’s second year, which means they have to decide whether to offer such job security to employees with just 16 months on the job. A good case could be made that college and university professors need job protections—the academic freedom to conduct possibly controversial research and to teach without administrative meddling is vital. But can the same be said for elementary and high school teachers?

Lol I never said firing teachers was a "solution". It was only brought up to show the millions that are burned in just one side of this corruption and the power of the teacher's unions, the same people that fight against charter schools and would fight against any educational reforms especially one as radical as applying Finnish models.

Also, I don't know what makes you assume that I don't work in or study the system

 

[ISO]

The teacher's unions don't want phonics instruction.

As a teacher in Oakland, Calif., Kareem Weaver helped struggling fourth- and fifth-grade kids learn to read by using a very structured, phonics-based reading curriculum called Open Court. It worked for the students, but not so much for the teachers. “For seven years in a row, Oakland was the fastest-gaining urban district in California for reading,” recalls Weaver. “And we hated it.”

The teachers felt like curriculum robots—and pushed back. “This seems dehumanizing, this is colonizing, this is the man telling us what to do,” says Weaver, describing their response to the approach. “So we fought tooth and nail as a teacher group to throw that out.” It was replaced in 2015 by a curriculum that emphasized rich literary experiences. “Those who wanted to fight for social justice, they figured that this new progressive way of teaching reading was the way,” he says.
Now Weaver is heading up a campaign to get his old school district to reinstate many of the methods that teachers resisted so strongly: specifically, systematic and consistent instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics. “In Oakland, when you have 19% of Black kids reading—that can’t be maintained in the society,” says Weaver, who received an early and vivid lesson in the value of literacy in 1984 after his cousin got out of prison and told him the other inmates stopped harassing him when they realized he could read their mail to them. “It has been an unmitigated disaster.” In January 2021, the local branch of the NAACP filed an administrative petition with the Oakland unified school district (OUSD) to ask it to include “explicit instruction for phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension” in its curriculum.

This is typical nationwide. A lot of teachers themselves would need to be retrained or would have to go back to school to learn the concept of phonics. I'd be surprised if a large portion of teachers could even tell you what a digraph is. Teaching phonics would ultimately be more work for the teachers and highly monotonous which is why they push back. The funny thing is in NYC its the charters who often use phonics and developing phonemic awareness to teach children reading, while the public schools use the balanced literacy approach.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This is the FACT. NYC charter schools with 100% minority enrollment and practically all students below the poverty line and with a difference of .8% in language learners and disabled students are vastly outperforming NYC public schools as a whole, especially destroying the schools they share buildings with in the same community with similar demographics with less per pupil spending, and even outperform some public schools in affluent white areas. In 2013, the 5th graders of Success Academy outperformed everyone in the state, that is major, an achievement that should be upheld and not critiqued with nonsensical talking points.

It turns out that your example is even worse than I thought. Besides working with a self-selected student body, Success Academy systematically kicks out kids who will bring down their scores (some of their schools have suspension rates as high as 22%, even with the self-selected student body and many kids already kicked out), and then artificially teaches to the test, doing everything they can to game the system for the sake of tests that have no impact on the students' futures:

How schools that obsess about standardized tests ruin them as measures of success

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

The Success Academy Charter Schools are arguably the best-known institutions that follow this model. The storyline its proponents push is that no-excuses schools may be tough but they prepare students well: They represent a kind of educational tough love.

In real life, though, the data seems to show that Success Academy thrives by a combination of kicking out poorly performing students and training the remainder to perform well on tests that kids at other schools don’t really care about — or don’t care as much about.

Other critics have focused on how Success Academy focuses on excluding students who are not likely to perform well on tests — an option public schools don’t have. A parent of a kindergartener with a speech disability complained to the New York Daily News that the academy tried to force her son back into the public schools by framing his frustration in class as a disciplinary problem and repeatedly suspending him. The New York Times revealed that one principal at a Success Academy school had a list of low-performing students labeled "Got to Go."

First, the focus on standardized test scores is relentless. And it takes place in a context in which, thanks to lobbying by leaders of and advocates for these schools, there is very little official oversight.

High scores on the practice test are rewarded with praise and even toys, purchased by the school as rewards; low scores are punished with public shaming. The behavior on the aforementioned video is an extreme example. More routine examples include posting on classroom walls every student’s scores, even when parents complain this embarrasses and pains their children.

Worse yet, in terms of data corruption, many of the practices — such as calling parents the night before a test, to make sure the kids get enough sleep — have no conceivable effect on students' mastery of the material. They are entirely designed to improve the conditions under which the test is taken.

Now, you may think, "Whatever they do to improve student performance on the tests is worth it." But those state tests don't help the kids. They're only used to evaluate schools. In the tests that actually help the kids, Success Academy students don't perform nearly as well - in fact, they perform significantly BELOW the citywide average, despite having a self-selected student body and then kicking out low-performing students:

But it took three years before any Success Academy students were accepted into New York City's elite high school network — and not for lack of trying. After two years of zero-percent acceptance rates, the figure rose to 11 percent this year, still considerably short of the 19 percent citywide average.

News coverage of those figures emphasized that that acceptance rate was still higher than the average for students of color (the population Success Academy mostly serves). But from a statistical standpoint, we would expect extremely high scores on the state exam to go along with extremely high scores on the high school application exams. It's not clear why race should be a factor when interpreting one and not the other.

The explanation for the discrepancy would appear to be that in high school admissions, everybody is trying hard, so the motivational tricks and obsessive focus on tests at Success Academy schools has less of an effect. Routine standardized tests are, by contrast, high stakes for schools but low stakes for students. Unless prodded by teachers and anxious administrators, the typical student may be indifferent about his or her performance.

So a charter school system with millions of dollars in outside funding, the ability to attract numerous teachers who don't want to teach in public schools, a self-selected student body, kicking out low-performing students, refusing to accept new students who might lower test scores, and then working their asses off 24/7 to game the tests....still is underperforming in the tests that actually matter to the kids.

Shouldn't that throw up some red flags and suggest this is a bullshyt "solution"?




Another article on how they work to game the tests moreso than work to provide a quality education:

At Success Academy schools, high-octane test prep leaves nothing to chance

The Success Academy charter school network outperforms many other schools on the state exams. It goes to great lengths to achieve those results.

ny.chalkbeat.org

On top of that, after they kick out the low-performing kids, Success Academy refuses to backfill seats that open up past the 3rd grade - so that teachers never have to work with a single "new kid" or anyone who hasn't already been in the system for years. That's another way to artificially game test scores - every other school HAS to deal with new students, with kids who move frequently, with kids who haven't had time to prep yet, which is going to naturally bring down their averages. Success Academy excludes all of those kids so that it will automatically have higher averages even if the remaining kids don't actually perform any better as a result.

The quieter charter school divide: what you need to know about 'backfill'

Before last year's budget deal made big changes to the way Mayor de Blasio could deal with charter schools in the years ahead, we explained the debate around student retention.

ny.chalkbeat.org

Notice that all of those factors - the self-selected student body, kicking out low-performing kids, refusing to accept any new kids after 3rd grade - are IMPOSSIBLE in the broader system. Success Academy is doing things to game their scores that only work because they work with a limited subsection of students. If the Success Academy model became "the way things were run", then they wouldn't be able to play those games anymore, because there would be no self-selection, every kid who got kicked out would still have to go to school somewhere, and new kids would have to be accepted. Suddenly the test scores become much less impressive.


(Not to mention that a system obsessively focused on preparing students to perform well on state tests which only measure the school and have no impact on the students' futures or actual learning levels sounds dystopian as fukk.)

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You are not reading my posts. I provided you with a hyperlink showing test results between charters, city-wide public schools, and state-wide public schools in New York in 2019.

Breh, you hyperlinked a 3-letter word which isn't even visible in my color scheme and didn't edit your post to point out a hyperlink until after I'd already read it.

What educational researchers and charter school "experts"? People who have been lobbied or have vested interest in pushing the narrative against charter schools? Disingenuous flawed data sets that don't take all considerations.

You don't even need a data set to prove your claim wrong. You're violating basic principles of sample sets that every single trained researcher has pounded into their brains in grad school.

Like I said, if you don't trust me, then ask ANY educational researcher you trust. Ask them if the 17,000 people who self-select to apply to Success Academy each year can be assumed to be the exact same academically when they come in as the hundreds of thousands kids in the rest of NYC.

To you somehow this is all a charade on the part of charters who are handpicking students (wrong) in order to keep their test scores high while they manage community tax dollars, it almost sounds sinister.

No, it's an explanation to you of why non-equivalent sample populations can't be compared straight up. From the beginning you even denied that Success Academy's applicants were self-selected, even though they clearly are, which makes me think you're reacting defensively about a school you want to prop up rather than seriously engaging with the issue.

Also, I don't know what makes you assume that I don't work in or study the system

Because you keep saying things that anyone who does actual research on the systems should know better. Such as:


1. Claiming that Success Academy's applicants weren't self-selected
2. Claiming that a self-selected student body and a default selection student body can be compared straight up
3. Claiming that all teachers in public schools have to have education degrees.

In NYC they aren't hiring teachers without education degrees, what they do hire is teachers who have completed a college education program but may not have passed their certification exams.

Bullshyt. Having an education degree isn't even a requirement for an NYC teacher.

New York City Teacher Certification Requirements​

If you have a bachelor’s degree and completed teacher preparation from a recognized New York state program or a similar program in another state, you can apply for a traditional certificate. New teachers will be issued an Initial Certificate, while experienced teachers may be eligible for the Professional Certificate. Take a look at our New York certification page for more information.

If you did not complete teacher preparation as part of your bachelor’s degree program, you can complete this requirement while you teach through a New York alternative certification program. These types of certificates include the Transitional A certificate for career and technical education teachers with experience but no degree or the Transitional B certificate for teaching fellows who are eligible to earn the certificate while they teach through programs such as the New York Teaching Collaborative, which places teachers in the highest-need schools. Our New York alternative certification page has more information about these options.

You don't need an education degree, you just need a bachelor's degree and they'll hire you. You need to complete a training program (not an education degree), but you can do that after you're hired.

 

[Wildhundreds]

Breh, you hyperlinked a 3-letter word which isn't even visible in my color scheme and didn't edit your post to point out a hyperlink until after I'd already read it.






You don't even need a data set to prove your claim wrong. You're violating basic principles of sample sets that every single trained researcher has pounded into their brains in grad school.

Like I said, if you don't trust me, then ask ANY educational researcher you trust. Ask them if the 17,000 people who self-select to apply to Success Academy each year can be assumed to be the exact same academically when they come in as the hundreds of thousands kids in the rest of NYC.






No, it's an explanation to you of why non-equivalent sample populations can't be compared straight up. From the beginning you even denied that Success Academy's applicants were self-selected, even though they clearly are, which makes me think you're reacting defensively about a school you want to prop up rather than seriously engaging with the issue.






Because you keep saying things that anyone who does actual research on the systems should know better. Such as:


1. Claiming that Success Academy's applicants weren't self-selected
2. Claiming that a self-selected student body and a default selection student body can be compared straight up
3. Claiming that all teachers in public schools have to have education degrees.






Bullshyt. Having an education degree isn't even a requirement for an NYC teacher.




You don't need an education degree, you just need a bachelor's degree and they'll hire you. You need to complete a training program (not an education degree), but you can do that after you're hired.

Charters schools have been proven a waste of time here in Chicago over the past 10+ years. And the education requirements are the same as well. Little to none needed.

 

[ISO]

It turns out that your example is even worse than I thought. Besides working with a self-selected student body, Success Academy works to systematically kick out kids who will bring down their scores (some of their schools have suspension rates as high as 22%, even with the self-selected student body and many kids already kicked out), and then artificially teach to the test all year long, doing everything they can to game the system for the sake of tests that have no impact on the students' futures:

How schools that obsess about standardized tests ruin them as measures of success

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Now, you may think, "Whatever they do to improve student performance on the tests is worth it." But those state tests don't help the kids. They're only used to evaluate schools. In the tests that actually help the kids, Success Academy students don't perform nearly as well - in fact, they perform well BELOW the citywide average, even after only having a self-selected student body and then kicking out as many low-performing students as they could:




So a charter school system with millions of dollars in outside funding, the ability to attract numerous teachers who don't want to teach in public schools, a completely self-selected student body, after kicking out tons of low-performing students, and then working their asses off 24/7 to game the tests....still is underperforming in the tests that actually matter to the kids.

Shouldn't that throw up some red flags and suggest this is a bullshyt "solution"?




Another article on how they work to game the tests moreso than work to provide a quality education:

At Success Academy schools, high-octane test prep leaves nothing to chance

The Success Academy charter school network outperforms many other schools on the state exams. It goes to great lengths to achieve those results.

ny.chalkbeat.org

On top of that, after they kick out the low-performing kids, Success Academy refuses to backfill seats that open up past the 3rd grade - so that teachers never have to work with a single "new kid" or anyone who hasn't already been in the system for years. That's another way to artificially game test scores - every other school HAS to deal with new students, with kids who move frequently, with kids who haven't had time to prep yet, which is going to naturally bring down their averages. Success Academy excludes all of those kids so that it will automatically have higher averages even if the remaining kids don't actually perform any better as a result.

The quieter charter school divide: what you need to know about 'backfill'

Before last year's budget deal made big changes to the way Mayor de Blasio could deal with charter schools in the years ahead, we explained the debate around student retention.

ny.chalkbeat.org

Notice that all of those factors - the self-selected student body, kicking out low-performing kids, refusing to accept any new kids after 3rd grade - are IMPOSSIBLE in the broader system. Success Academy is doing things to game their scores that only work because they work with a limited subsection of students. If the Success Academy model became "the way things were run", then they wouldn't be able to play those games anymore, because there would be no self-selection, every kid who got kicked out would still have to go to school somewhere, and new kids would have to be accepted. Suddenly the test scores become much less impressive.


(Not to mention that a system obsessively focused on preparing students to perform well on state tests which only measure the school and have no impact on the students' futures or actual learning levels sounds dystopian as fukk.)

That is one biased article and with the typical anti-charter school talking points.

They don't kick out "low performing students". They kick out students who are repeated violators of the discipline code, those students tend to be low performing. If public schools actually had any semblance of discipline a much higher % of their students would be disciplined with suspensions and expulsions. In the public schools, children are allowed to get away with murder.


Look at this bullshyt. The school is wrong for teaching for the test, also known as ensuring that students have mastery of basic concepts in a subject. The school is wrong for awarding students who do well and "shaming" students who do poorly, also known as encouraging them to work harder. You can't post student test results because it "embarrasses" children, how soft have we become? The school is wrong for calling parents before a test, also known as parent engagement to ensure student success. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this it is just being framed in a sinister way by people with a vested interest and brain washing that these schools are bad.

Also, as I already told you comparing city-wide public schools to charter schools is a typical move by detractors of charter schools. You are sending me basically union propaganda. The charter schools particularly the ones I've mentioned have essentially a 100% minority and ecnominically disadvantaged populace which cannot be said for the public school enrollment as a whole.

 

[Tribaligenesis]

The only thing that's been proven to work is investment and smaller class sizes

 

[Mook]

I don't think enough black people understand how offensive it is when they do shyt like this or purposely lower test scores or say shyt like "black kids learn differently"

Nah I personally always thought this because of two things: 1. It’s taking resources to pump it into a small group 2. It’s admitting the regular classes aren’t good enough.

 

[ISO]

Breh, you hyperlinked a 3-letter word which isn't even visible in my color scheme and didn't edit your post to point out a hyperlink until after I'd already read it.






You don't even need a data set to prove your claim wrong. You're violating basic principles of sample sets that every single trained researcher has pounded into their brains in grad school.

Like I said, if you don't trust me, then ask ANY educational researcher you trust. Ask them if the 17,000 people who self-select to apply to Success Academy each year can be assumed to be the exact same academically when they come in as the hundreds of thousands kids in the rest of NYC.






No, it's an explanation to you of why non-equivalent sample populations can't be compared straight up. From the beginning you even denied that Success Academy's applicants were self-selected, even though they clearly are, which makes me think you're reacting defensively about a school you want to prop up rather than seriously engaging with the issue.






Because you keep saying things that anyone who does actual research on the systems should know better. Such as:


1. Claiming that Success Academy's applicants weren't self-selected
2. Claiming that a self-selected student body and a default selection student body can be compared straight up
3. Claiming that all teachers in public schools have to have education degrees.






Bullshyt. Having an education degree isn't even a requirement for an NYC teacher.




You don't need an education degree, you just need a bachelor's degree and they'll hire you. You need to complete a training program (not an education degree), but you can do that after you're hired.

I hyperlinked it, I don't know what scheme you use and what scheme you use is irrelevant. The browser would not allow me to use the image with that code .svg which is why I had to hyperlink. I edited my post because I noticed if you didn't hover your mouse over it, it was't showing it was a link. This is all irrelevant though.

I explained to you why charter schools have to "self select", also known as administer a lottery yet you continue to ignore it how many times do I have to say it? Also who gives a damn if they "self select" when the students they get are the same damn black and brown kids with the same economic disadvantages and when their schools have a similar % of language learners and disabled students. What makes god damn Kindgergarteners who have likely never been to school different just because their parents had the wherewithal to apply to a charter school, which nowadays is an ever increasing % of parents in urban areas. How are these students more apt than their public school counterparts, some that even happen to be part of the same family unit.

Did you even read what you posted? I already explained what is written there. A bachelor's degree with a teacher preparation program is a god damn education degree. It basically means you majored in a content area with an education specialty and completed the student teaching experience. For example an English Education major with an initial certificate (professional certificate given once experience threshold is passed) licensed to teach secondary school children (7th through 12th grade) that's what it breaks down to. All others are those hired through alternative pipelines who go through an internship and gain certification by passing the tests those who went through traditional teacher pipeline went through (edTPA, content specialty test, educating all students test).

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Did you even read what you posted? I already explained what is written there. A bachelor's degree with a teacher preparation program is a god damn education degree.

But you don't need to take a bachelor's degree with a teacher prep program. They'll hire people with ANY bachelor's degree and then let them do the teacher prep later, just like charter schools.

I don't know why I should even continue this discussion if you're going to double down on a claim as ridiculous as "NYC public schools only hire teachers with education degrees."