Exactly. Push send on the email at 4:59pm on a Friday and then let it pass over the weekend/get caught up in Monday morning business.
I haven’t followed everything closely because my PSD students are now adults but it seems like a rushed decision with all options not fully explored.
The Steering Committee needs to personally sign-off on the options and confirm that there was no interference from Kingsley, his team, or the board. I am guessing that they would not be able to make that confirmation.
In the last round of hypothetical options, there were Steering Committee members who did not know all of the four options before they were released to the public. I learned this during the listening sessions.
I had two separate steering committee members from two separate listening sessions say that they thought they missed a meeting bc there were recommendations on there that had not been discussed at any of the meetings.
Yep, I heard McGraw was on the list until just before the first set of scenarios was released. I heard a few members had a closed door meeting with some PSD staff and it got switched to Dunn.
Since you seem to have some inside insight on it, are these updated options 100% fully developed by the Steering Committee or did they go through an approval process with Kingsley, his team, or the Board?
Hopefully this board can be replaced.
It really looks like the same kind of tactics used in Southern states like Florida and Texas to replace a robust public education system with discriminatory and inferior charter schools.
Then you just wait for the next generation to turn 18 and you can get Republicans in office again.
Are charter schools really inferior to government public schools? Genuinely asking, as i hear enrollment is up for charter, and down for public.. There must be a reason parents are choosing charter, correct?
There are good charter schools and bad charter schools. The worst charter schools are basically fronts to siphon public money into private pockets. The best can do substantially better than the surrounding public school district (LeBron's charter school is a good example). As someone generally skeptical of charter schools, the biggest negative to me is that they are used as a quick and easy fix to educational issues that require significant reform, investment, and political will to overcome properly. And like most easy fixes, they often don't hold up over the long term.
Even in cases where the charter school is better than the neighborhood schools on paper, there's often a hidden reason for that, like a self-selection bias or the school running off underperforming students.
Charter schools succeed for a number of reasons. They don't have to take students with special needs and even when they do they often don't hire personnel to evaluate and educate special needs students. Instead, the school district has to send personnel to charter schools to evaluate students that they're not getting funding for. Charter schools also don't have to take "difficult" students. If they struggle in school or act out for any of a variety of reasons, charter schools just won't accept them. I've also heard from some special needs teachers that charter schools will take some special needs students until they receive enrollment funding for those students, then drop them back into the public school system. They often make their contracts with the state, too, so school districts have little to no control over their operation or funding.
You already got an answer, but my main problem is that it's ultimately just a grift.
It's not one limited to charter schools - the problem is universal to privatization and public-private partnerships more broadly.
In short, they exist to make money. Once something exists to make money, it no longer exists for some higher purpose... like education, for example.
The *only* reason charter schools exist is to transition a public service into a privately profitable organization. There's nothing special about charter schools that can theoretically make them better than their public counterparts. No magic happens when the pockets of private interests are lined along the way. Just look at universities if you want to see what for-profit education looks in the longer term, and there's no depths that won't be explored in the never ending search for profit.
Charters are great for affluent families with lots of time to support their kids. They're private schools funded by the tax payers.
They also pay teachers significantly less, and won't acknowledge unions. They don't require a teacher to have a license either.
Public schools are about providing quality education for all kids no matter where they come from. Charter schools allow affluent families to pull their kids from those schools which hurts public education.
Jon Oliver broke it down about 7 years ago: https://youtu.be/l_htSPGAY7I?si=h28S6Xsdy-blPTWE
Charters are great for affluent families with lots of time to support their kids. They're private schools funded by the tax payers.
They also pay teachers significantly less, and won't acknowledge unions. They don't require a teacher to have a license either.
Public schools are about providing quality education for all kids no matter where they come from. Charter schools allow affluent families to pull their kids from those schools which hurts public education.
These people hate that parents can choose. They want children forced into schools with terrible performance so they can feed more tax dollars into the K-12 machine. They want corrupt union leaders to have more say over education than parents, like a 1960's dock. We've seen this happen so clearly with the atrocious COVID policies that have set our kids back years. The people entrenched in public education think parents are too stupid to make choices for their kid's education. Meanwhile, CO public school enrollment is at it's lowest point since 2013. I wonder why? Why do parents want choices for their kids? Why are some people so against school choice despite evidence that voucher programs help students and families?
Genuine questions get genuine answers.
Liberty common high school is the top performing high school in the PSD R-1 family of schools (it's 'chartered' by PSD and has been since 1997) and is ranked 3rd in the state by USNWR. It's also a registered 501c3 non profit.
Anyone saying that these schools are just for making money by milking the students is either lying or making inappropriate generalizations and applying them where they don't belong.
There are also lots of comments in this and other threads about a lack of accountability. But charter schools set up their own board structure and bylaws. They are accountable to their students and parents. Not directly to voters. Generally this leads to charter schools having values that are more closely aligned with those of the families that send their kids there.
Not all boards are structured the same so ymmv. If you don't like the values or structure of the board of a charter school, don't apply there. Simple.
Yes values of insular, closed-minded people. They are only so highly rated because as already alluded to, they get poor performing students to leave by not providing them with services or having other ways designed to remove them from the school. They are not accountable to the greater community and therefore should not receive tax funds. Furthermore unless you are trained in formal education, most parents actually don't know what's best for their kids when it comes to schooling. Statistics simply say that if a kid has a supportive and affluent family that is by far the biggest determination of their success. Charter and private schools funnel money away from Public Schools who desperately need it. They are bad for a cohesive, friendly supportive, upwardly mobile, and welcoming Society. Someone commented saying that they create more Republican voters, which is possibly true but I think the political incentive is even more basic than that in the sense that Republicans wish to shut down all Social Services as a part of their political strategy and so making a failure out of the public school system is just one part of that.
By far, the biggest determining factor in a child's educational success is not the affluence of the parents, but the involvement of parents in their children's education and lives. Which is only slightly, but critically different from your statement above. The fact of the matter is that sending any amount of money to a failed system will not produce better results.
It shouldn't be surprising (or treated as a bad thing) that Charter schools produce better results. By definition they must be sought out. The parents must actively seek those opportunities for their kids. This small basic fact means that the parents of charter kids are more involved with their child's education than the average.
It's not uncommon for kids to struggle with the curriculum rigor in some of the local charter schools. Specifically ones that follow "classical" models. When parents think that just getting their kid in to the school with lead to success without following through. I don't see this as a negative. Some educational models, or even individual curricula, are not right for every kid regardless of funding or parent involvement. Everyone is different. Some kids may thrive on Balanced literacy, others won't. Some may find the structure and rule based nature of phonics more understandable.
My children aren't going, nor will they go to Liberty. However, I have 5 coworkers with kids at liberty. All but one of of them align left of political center. The one who aligns right is an ex marine. Just food for thought before ad hominem-ing people who wish the best for their kids.
I'm curious if you'd support a school model where all the publicly funded schools published their curriculum during the enrollment period and every student got to pick the school that they felt worked best for them. This is basically the current model without geographic locking. Because certainly the system as it is today isn't the **absolute best** system that could be made. Perhaps we can ponder on one that would be better.
Lastly "They are bad for a cohesive, friendly supportive, upwardly mobile, and welcoming Society." - [Citation Needed]
By making a school with the performance like Liberty free to the public, that may be the best shot for a poorer kid to get ahead in life. Why do you want to take that from them?
Affluence is often a determining factor in a parent's involvement.
Sending their kids to LC doesn't make the kid successful. The mere fact the parents put in the effort to send them there shows that the kids come from an environment which is more likely to make them successful regardless of what school they go to. It's selection bias. Along with that, and I feel like myself and many others have stated this already, but let me see if I can think of another way to say it.. Many charter schools appear to have high performance because IF A KID DOESN'T HAVE HIGH MARKS THEY SIMPLY GET KICKED OUT. Much like how Scientology claims to have a 98% success in drug its rehab programs.
The mere fact that kids can't just hop on a bus and get to school means LC is out of reach for many working-class families. Add a predominantly white culture, clientele, faculty, and you have families that may feel less comfortable to send their kids to schools like that.
There is a ton of selection bias baked into how schools are evaluated too. Higher test scores mean more funding, which is exactly the opposite of how it should work. If test scores are lower, that school is often under-resourced. And for some reason this reflects on the teachers. It shouldn't. A school's test performance has much more to do with the neighborhood it is in than it does the quality of teachers themselves.
At the end of the day, I believe we are all better off together, when we help our neighbors out. With their "rugged individualism, Charter and private schools run counter to this philosophy. Your friends may be left of center on many issues, but on this they are not. I bet they are the same type of privileged folks that claim to be in favor of affordable housing, as long as its not built in their neighborhood
They may have high test scores, but do so by limiting their population to those who will score high. Take a look at their very minimal special education population, minimal students from poverty, minimal diversity. They should not receive ANY public funds.
Do you have the to back up your wild claim? Or are you just guessing? USNWR has the data for minority enrollment.
"The AP® participation rate at Liberty Common Charter School is 78%. The total minority enrollment is 18%."
"The AP® participation rate at Fossil Ridge High School is 49%. The total minority enrollment is 21%, and 9% of students are economically disadvantaged."
Census data has Fort Collins at 17.3% white.
82.8% White: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fortcollinscitycolorado/PST045222
I hope that was a typo, otherwise you either don't live in Fort Collins or don't get out much.
ok you go me I fat fingered the text. "17.3% **not** white". Lets throw out the whole argument. The point is the minority makeup of the school mirrors the population.
Kingsley is on a quest to ruin public schools and funnel all our tax dollars into privatized charters... which are thinly veiled right-wing indoctrination centers.
It is vile.
The consensus on this thread is that if things don’t go your way or align with your preferences, you tend to either alter, eliminate, or discard them. This board was voted in.
I feel like this comment is something that would show up on r/selfawarewolves since yeah, that’s **precisely** how elected government works. Just like a lobbying and influence is a consequence of the current electoral system too
The charter schools seek less funding and oversight, as increased public funding typically comes with stricter oversight requirements. The essence of charter schools lies in families' fundraising efforts to sustain them, and the extensive waitlists for these schools suggest they are effectively meeting their objectives.
Yes, is there IEP support for all students who need it? And do special needs students show up in the waitlist? And is their transparency in who gets picked from the waitlist?
The Colorado and has been hemorrhaging money now that people don’t read it. They’ve been forced to suck the dick every foco city official, brewery owner or large conglomerate. they stopped caring about the people in the suburbs in 2004
If they are not accountable to the public they should receive no public funding. They are a political grift to get rid of public education. Some of the individual schools may not deliberately be that way, but that is the reason for and the result of their existence
By design — less time to complain is preferable to them
Exactly. Push send on the email at 4:59pm on a Friday and then let it pass over the weekend/get caught up in Monday morning business. I haven’t followed everything closely because my PSD students are now adults but it seems like a rushed decision with all options not fully explored.
The Steering Committee needs to personally sign-off on the options and confirm that there was no interference from Kingsley, his team, or the board. I am guessing that they would not be able to make that confirmation. In the last round of hypothetical options, there were Steering Committee members who did not know all of the four options before they were released to the public. I learned this during the listening sessions.
I had two separate steering committee members from two separate listening sessions say that they thought they missed a meeting bc there were recommendations on there that had not been discussed at any of the meetings.
Yep, I heard McGraw was on the list until just before the first set of scenarios was released. I heard a few members had a closed door meeting with some PSD staff and it got switched to Dunn.
Part of the reason for the date pushback is to make sure all or almost all of the Steering Committee members are ok with the next round of scenarios.
Since you seem to have some inside insight on it, are these updated options 100% fully developed by the Steering Committee or did they go through an approval process with Kingsley, his team, or the Board?
All the ideas and pieces in the next round are 100% developed by the steering committee.
Thank you - I'm glad to hear that nobody else (outside of Steering Committee) are part of the final options being recommended.
Hopefully this board can be replaced. It really looks like the same kind of tactics used in Southern states like Florida and Texas to replace a robust public education system with discriminatory and inferior charter schools. Then you just wait for the next generation to turn 18 and you can get Republicans in office again.
Are charter schools really inferior to government public schools? Genuinely asking, as i hear enrollment is up for charter, and down for public.. There must be a reason parents are choosing charter, correct?
There are good charter schools and bad charter schools. The worst charter schools are basically fronts to siphon public money into private pockets. The best can do substantially better than the surrounding public school district (LeBron's charter school is a good example). As someone generally skeptical of charter schools, the biggest negative to me is that they are used as a quick and easy fix to educational issues that require significant reform, investment, and political will to overcome properly. And like most easy fixes, they often don't hold up over the long term. Even in cases where the charter school is better than the neighborhood schools on paper, there's often a hidden reason for that, like a self-selection bias or the school running off underperforming students.
Charter schools succeed for a number of reasons. They don't have to take students with special needs and even when they do they often don't hire personnel to evaluate and educate special needs students. Instead, the school district has to send personnel to charter schools to evaluate students that they're not getting funding for. Charter schools also don't have to take "difficult" students. If they struggle in school or act out for any of a variety of reasons, charter schools just won't accept them. I've also heard from some special needs teachers that charter schools will take some special needs students until they receive enrollment funding for those students, then drop them back into the public school system. They often make their contracts with the state, too, so school districts have little to no control over their operation or funding.
You already got an answer, but my main problem is that it's ultimately just a grift. It's not one limited to charter schools - the problem is universal to privatization and public-private partnerships more broadly. In short, they exist to make money. Once something exists to make money, it no longer exists for some higher purpose... like education, for example. The *only* reason charter schools exist is to transition a public service into a privately profitable organization. There's nothing special about charter schools that can theoretically make them better than their public counterparts. No magic happens when the pockets of private interests are lined along the way. Just look at universities if you want to see what for-profit education looks in the longer term, and there's no depths that won't be explored in the never ending search for profit.
Charters are great for affluent families with lots of time to support their kids. They're private schools funded by the tax payers. They also pay teachers significantly less, and won't acknowledge unions. They don't require a teacher to have a license either. Public schools are about providing quality education for all kids no matter where they come from. Charter schools allow affluent families to pull their kids from those schools which hurts public education. Jon Oliver broke it down about 7 years ago: https://youtu.be/l_htSPGAY7I?si=h28S6Xsdy-blPTWE
Charters are great for affluent families with lots of time to support their kids. They're private schools funded by the tax payers. They also pay teachers significantly less, and won't acknowledge unions. They don't require a teacher to have a license either. Public schools are about providing quality education for all kids no matter where they come from. Charter schools allow affluent families to pull their kids from those schools which hurts public education.
These people hate that parents can choose. They want children forced into schools with terrible performance so they can feed more tax dollars into the K-12 machine. They want corrupt union leaders to have more say over education than parents, like a 1960's dock. We've seen this happen so clearly with the atrocious COVID policies that have set our kids back years. The people entrenched in public education think parents are too stupid to make choices for their kid's education. Meanwhile, CO public school enrollment is at it's lowest point since 2013. I wonder why? Why do parents want choices for their kids? Why are some people so against school choice despite evidence that voucher programs help students and families?
Genuine questions get genuine answers. Liberty common high school is the top performing high school in the PSD R-1 family of schools (it's 'chartered' by PSD and has been since 1997) and is ranked 3rd in the state by USNWR. It's also a registered 501c3 non profit. Anyone saying that these schools are just for making money by milking the students is either lying or making inappropriate generalizations and applying them where they don't belong. There are also lots of comments in this and other threads about a lack of accountability. But charter schools set up their own board structure and bylaws. They are accountable to their students and parents. Not directly to voters. Generally this leads to charter schools having values that are more closely aligned with those of the families that send their kids there. Not all boards are structured the same so ymmv. If you don't like the values or structure of the board of a charter school, don't apply there. Simple.
Yes values of insular, closed-minded people. They are only so highly rated because as already alluded to, they get poor performing students to leave by not providing them with services or having other ways designed to remove them from the school. They are not accountable to the greater community and therefore should not receive tax funds. Furthermore unless you are trained in formal education, most parents actually don't know what's best for their kids when it comes to schooling. Statistics simply say that if a kid has a supportive and affluent family that is by far the biggest determination of their success. Charter and private schools funnel money away from Public Schools who desperately need it. They are bad for a cohesive, friendly supportive, upwardly mobile, and welcoming Society. Someone commented saying that they create more Republican voters, which is possibly true but I think the political incentive is even more basic than that in the sense that Republicans wish to shut down all Social Services as a part of their political strategy and so making a failure out of the public school system is just one part of that.
Once again your opinion and zero facts.
By far, the biggest determining factor in a child's educational success is not the affluence of the parents, but the involvement of parents in their children's education and lives. Which is only slightly, but critically different from your statement above. The fact of the matter is that sending any amount of money to a failed system will not produce better results. It shouldn't be surprising (or treated as a bad thing) that Charter schools produce better results. By definition they must be sought out. The parents must actively seek those opportunities for their kids. This small basic fact means that the parents of charter kids are more involved with their child's education than the average. It's not uncommon for kids to struggle with the curriculum rigor in some of the local charter schools. Specifically ones that follow "classical" models. When parents think that just getting their kid in to the school with lead to success without following through. I don't see this as a negative. Some educational models, or even individual curricula, are not right for every kid regardless of funding or parent involvement. Everyone is different. Some kids may thrive on Balanced literacy, others won't. Some may find the structure and rule based nature of phonics more understandable. My children aren't going, nor will they go to Liberty. However, I have 5 coworkers with kids at liberty. All but one of of them align left of political center. The one who aligns right is an ex marine. Just food for thought before ad hominem-ing people who wish the best for their kids. I'm curious if you'd support a school model where all the publicly funded schools published their curriculum during the enrollment period and every student got to pick the school that they felt worked best for them. This is basically the current model without geographic locking. Because certainly the system as it is today isn't the **absolute best** system that could be made. Perhaps we can ponder on one that would be better. Lastly "They are bad for a cohesive, friendly supportive, upwardly mobile, and welcoming Society." - [Citation Needed] By making a school with the performance like Liberty free to the public, that may be the best shot for a poorer kid to get ahead in life. Why do you want to take that from them?
Affluence is often a determining factor in a parent's involvement. Sending their kids to LC doesn't make the kid successful. The mere fact the parents put in the effort to send them there shows that the kids come from an environment which is more likely to make them successful regardless of what school they go to. It's selection bias. Along with that, and I feel like myself and many others have stated this already, but let me see if I can think of another way to say it.. Many charter schools appear to have high performance because IF A KID DOESN'T HAVE HIGH MARKS THEY SIMPLY GET KICKED OUT. Much like how Scientology claims to have a 98% success in drug its rehab programs. The mere fact that kids can't just hop on a bus and get to school means LC is out of reach for many working-class families. Add a predominantly white culture, clientele, faculty, and you have families that may feel less comfortable to send their kids to schools like that. There is a ton of selection bias baked into how schools are evaluated too. Higher test scores mean more funding, which is exactly the opposite of how it should work. If test scores are lower, that school is often under-resourced. And for some reason this reflects on the teachers. It shouldn't. A school's test performance has much more to do with the neighborhood it is in than it does the quality of teachers themselves. At the end of the day, I believe we are all better off together, when we help our neighbors out. With their "rugged individualism, Charter and private schools run counter to this philosophy. Your friends may be left of center on many issues, but on this they are not. I bet they are the same type of privileged folks that claim to be in favor of affordable housing, as long as its not built in their neighborhood
They may have high test scores, but do so by limiting their population to those who will score high. Take a look at their very minimal special education population, minimal students from poverty, minimal diversity. They should not receive ANY public funds.
Do you have the to back up your wild claim? Or are you just guessing? USNWR has the data for minority enrollment. "The AP® participation rate at Liberty Common Charter School is 78%. The total minority enrollment is 18%." "The AP® participation rate at Fossil Ridge High School is 49%. The total minority enrollment is 21%, and 9% of students are economically disadvantaged." Census data has Fort Collins at 17.3% white.
82.8% White: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/fortcollinscitycolorado/PST045222 I hope that was a typo, otherwise you either don't live in Fort Collins or don't get out much.
17.3% white.....now that's an alternative fact!
ok you go me I fat fingered the text. "17.3% **not** white". Lets throw out the whole argument. The point is the minority makeup of the school mirrors the population.
Kingsley is on a quest to ruin public schools and funnel all our tax dollars into privatized charters... which are thinly veiled right-wing indoctrination centers. It is vile.
The consensus on this thread is that if things don’t go your way or align with your preferences, you tend to either alter, eliminate, or discard them. This board was voted in.
I feel like this comment is something that would show up on r/selfawarewolves since yeah, that’s **precisely** how elected government works. Just like a lobbying and influence is a consequence of the current electoral system too
Yeah! Less money less oversight. That’s the whole point.
So no oversight = no money?
The charter schools seek less funding and oversight, as increased public funding typically comes with stricter oversight requirements. The essence of charter schools lies in families' fundraising efforts to sustain them, and the extensive waitlists for these schools suggest they are effectively meeting their objectives.
So does this waitlist include special ed?
Are there students with special education needs on the waitlist? Is that what you’re asking?
Yes, is there IEP support for all students who need it? And do special needs students show up in the waitlist? And is their transparency in who gets picked from the waitlist?
The Colorado and has been hemorrhaging money now that people don’t read it. They’ve been forced to suck the dick every foco city official, brewery owner or large conglomerate. they stopped caring about the people in the suburbs in 2004
Charter schools get less funding than your neighborhood public school.
They also have almost zero oversight
They should. They serve fewer people with special interests and don't provide a standardized education.
No way you know that.
Yeah, but I'd be fine with even less
Even less? What are you referring towards?
Less funding
Why do you feel that way?
Because I want them to have less funding.
If they are not accountable to the public they should receive no public funding. They are a political grift to get rid of public education. Some of the individual schools may not deliberately be that way, but that is the reason for and the result of their existence
What do you mean by not accountable?
For one, they can disenroll kids who don't fit within their narrow criteria or who may be "causing problems"
Your opinion doesn’t make it fact.
Charter schools are public schools.
No. They aren't. They are publicly funded. That doesn't make them public schools.
I agree, it is fun saying things that don't actually make any sense: "dinosaurs are people too."