If the subject arises in conversation, you'd note that I have a slight to extreme anti charter school leaning....
Here's a brief LA Times piece about some California charter schools with some discriminatory practices. A snippet of it says this,
"Researchers used a rubric to grade the schools' policies, as expressed on their websites. They looked for different types of discrimination: bias against English language learners; requirements for essays, interviews, auditions or academic performance; mandates for parents; and practices that could drive away students who are in the U.S. illegally.
Many of the schools on the report's list asked for essays or required parents to pitch in or used language that might discourage some immigrant students."
The problem with these kinds of admissions policies is that performance and parent participation is highly correlated to socio-economic status. By using the above factors as screening factors, they're weeding out disadvantaged populations. Populations who, statistically, have less of a chance at academic success and thus would be a hindrance to a charter schools published graduation rates and college acceptances.
You know, I have so much more to say about charter schools. I am, to a degree, compelled to go deep into the subject and to substantiate a lot of the qualms I have.
- Urban Prep's famed 100% college acceptance rate data is not as pretty as it seems
- More discriminatory admissions and graduation practices
- I think I already talked about how disgusting "grit" & "rigor" are
- Steve Perry is whack af
- My brief experience at KIPP and my friend's experience at Yes Prep!
- Ballou High School, and many others, just passing kids along
- lack of charter school accountability and oversight
- and why in general you can't compare public and charters (also public schools) performance
So, I don't know. Maybe I'll talk about it. Maybe I'll just link to all the resources. We'll see.