<p>Forcing people to go to bad schools will make those schools better?</p>
<p>It has been done
Communities where those with the background- means and motivation, to demand/implement/support strong programs in the schools have turned those schools around.</p>
<p>They didn’t make my daughters high school " in the inner city", a gifted magnet, because it was already a successful & in demand school.
But it is now.</p>
<p>Here in NYC the School choice system is basically a nightmare for kids and parents alike due to its high degree of uncertainly. You never know where your kid will end up attending because the choice is made by either a) rigid or inflexible criteria of test scores, grades, punctuality (!!!) and attendance, or b) a random pick of the computers. There is very little in between and the system has driven several parents I know to the suburbs or private schools. In such a system entire schools are essentially tracked, not just the classes within them (with some exceptions). The strongest students will get a good education. The weakest ones will at least have a chance to get the help they need. The ones in the middle? School choice–at least the NYC variety–fails them mightily. No academic challenge, yet little boost for their weaknesses either. It doesn’t help that there is little upwards academic mobility–chances for switching after the 9th grade are greatly diminished. It’s ironic that the only HS choice goes to the top students who test into Stuyvesant, Bronx Science et al. They get that placement and another one as well, while the other 95% of students who need a choice are given only one placement. And, of course, in this “meritocratic” system there is always the unspoken issues of class and race, with many of the stronger HS programs pushing to attract and retain the white middle-class, kids who get what little benefit of the doubt that is given–and leaving the rest of us sitting on the sidelines. </p>
<p>What’s needed are more HS with a true range of academics. Schools with enough challenge for strong students AND enough remedial help for the weak ones. That’s pretty common in a suburban HS. But it ain’t there yet in the big cities, where schools are more than ever admitting “numbers” not kids.</p>
<p>"School choice–at least the NYC variety–fails them mightily. No academic challenge, yet little boost for their weaknesses either. "</p>
<p>That’s so true here, which is why my oldest who is in the middle, went private. The problem is that the choice for those kids isn’t made by the families – it’s made by a stystem that’s not particularly interested in them. My younger daughter had an unbelievable range of options. The specialized school exam is a separate track, Bard, the regular track AND as a kid who scored in the 99% on 7th grade standardized tests, she got to guarantee selection of her seat in a regular high school, something that for the other 98% of the population is pretty much random. The system jumps through flaming hoops to keep the overachievers, but I still say that I don’t know how that benefits anyone other than my family and our bank account. BUt, hey, they wanted the kid and now they have her and we’re going to take advantage of all the special offerings that we had to pay for with D1 and put the money into D2’s college account.</p>
<p>*Schools with enough challenge for strong students AND enough remedial help for the weak ones. *</p>
<p>Yes-</p>
<p>I don’t believe in testing into public K-12 schools.
I believe that the group administered tests that are used, identify students who are already doing well, not just because of intelligence, but because of family support and possibly income.
Yes those students thrive in an enriched environment, but * all students* would thrive in an enriched environment.</p>
<p>Both my kids are “gifted” <cough>, both have “special needs”.
Those kids in most areas- are not served- its either teach to the middle- or skim off the top and put them in one program, and gather the bottom and put* them* in another* different* program.</cough></p>
<p>It can be done, to teach to students who aren’t in the middle but who need extra support * and * challenge, but it isn’t easy, and I expect they would have to totally revamp the schools of education.</p>
<p>Zoosemom. I have one in public HS right now and I am not happy with the placement. It’s not a disaster, and in many ways he could have done far worse. But a HS w/no summer reading list and no English regents until the 12th grade are red flags to me. This kid may yet end up in a private/church school. Our other kid barely escaped academic hell going into middle school. He was rejected from six out of six choices, we pushed the powers that be to let him test for a G&T program, which he got into easily. (Didn’t hurt that he had taken four others middle school tests before that one. But if the kid was so smart, why did six other places reject him? Hmmmmmmm.) I’m supposed to be thrilled that he is into this “top” program–one that many other parents would die to send their kids to–but the process has been so grueling and painful that I’m not there yet. </p>
<p>Good to luck to yr daughter too. I envy her having options. Im sure she has chose well and will do great.</p>
<p>"Zoosemom. I have one in public HS right now and I am not happy with the placement. It’s not a disaster, and in many ways he could have done far worse. But a HS w/no summer reading list and no English regents until the 12th grade are red flags to me. "</p>
<p>This would scare the heck out of me. The normal track for English is to take the Regents exam in 11th grade. Did they have a reason for slowing him down? When will he take Global, Math A and the science regents? I have to tell you that I find that very disturbing. My daughter’s school has summer reading for every kid in the school. It’s given out at the end of the year, posted on the school website AND mailed home.</p>
<p>Forcing people to go to bad schools will make those schools better?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, bad schools can be turned around. But I very much doubt that the turn around was because people were forced to go to the school? Something else was happening.</p>
<p>Reason #1 why I no longer send my kids to our local public high school – I wasn’t listened to. Answer to my questions: “It’s always been that way.” Or “If you don’t like it, maybe you should go somewhere else.” etc. So, okay, we are going elsewhere . . .</p>
<p>the other things that were happening were the programs that were brought with that “cohort” of students.</p>
<p>I would agree that lotteries are very frustrating-</p>
<p>I tried to enroll my younger daughter in a ( private) program, for K-2, taught by the same teacher her sister had had, for K. ( In the same building- it would have been perfect)-
She has a combination of needs/skills that were problematic and it was frustrating finding anything that remotely could be a good fit.
It was very disappointing when she wasn’t able to enroll through the lottery.</p>
<p>( although I just argued against “fairness” on another thread, I am going to use it here anyway)</p>
<p>I felt that - to be fair- ;),
our prior experience in co-ops should have been considered ( some parents- don’t really get it & so don’t do their hours- or only pay attention to their own)
The dearth of other appropriate choices.
& and because it was by far our 1st choice. 
( Im not going to think about it- because it doesn’t make any difference now- but it might have allowed her to have a more positive elementary school experience- which would have improved middle school)</p>
<p>Yes, programs that weren’t there before, I would guess? Yes, that would make a difference to me. Simply making people go to an underperforming school isn’t going to change the school unless something else is done differently – responding to the wishes of parents for the kinds of programs they want for their kids is basic.</p>
<p>“Yes, programs that weren’t there before, I would guess?”</p>
<p>But how does that help the kids who would have been there anyway? If you’re an average or struggling kid and all of a sudden there is a program for high-achievers that brings in kids that wouldn’t have been there otherwise, but you never have a class with them or mix in any way, how does it help you?</p>
<p>Zmom-- the math, science and global regents are sophomore year, which I understand is pretty normal. I guess they put off english because so many of the kids there are poor readers and need extra time to get the basics. irony is, of course, that english is my kid’s favorite subject and his strongest too. maybe they can move his test up a year if we decide to keep him there–we’ll see. he is self-directed in reading and loves the harry potters, the time machine, anything else fantasy of SF, as well war stories, like histories and fiction set in the Civil War or WWII. Funny Story: his MS english teacher gave him Catcher in the Rye as extra credit to read. A few weeks later I see it stiiting untouched on the living room coffee table. “Why havent you read this?” “I dont want to. It’s a book about a teenager with problems. I dont need that. Why should I read that? I AM a teenager with problems. I dont need to read about another one!” He read Night instead and loved it. I am still mad that the system did not place him in a school where his love of reading and writing will be better nourished. </p>
<p>Emrladkity–A school that bascially individualizes education is the ideal. one that can help bright kids with LDs (like yours), kids way stronger on one area than another (like mine), kids that are excellent across the board, kids that need remedial. Above all, I firmly agree with you that ALL kids need enrichment and challenge. Where schools fail to do this the most is when they take those damned tests as gospel and figure that’s all tyour kid will ever be or as high as they can ever go. That schools dont do this is , I fear, only partly due to a lcak of funding. More often it is due to-- in our excreable presiden’t only true words–the soft bigotry of low expectations. Given the chance and support, kids will rise to the occassion of academic challenge. But i suspect that this entails too many changes for school systms and teachers used to pigeonholing students according to pat formulas and doing things the oldfasioned way.</p>
<p>The worst thing about all this is that kids can internalize the schools judgement of them. “I didn’t t get into Bronx Science or LaGuradia or Bard? Then I guess I must be dumb” I fight this battle all the time with both of mine, and its especially tough with an adolescent, whose self-image is in formation and still fragile. I pray that they don’t succumb to the judgement of people who know them far less well than their parents.</p>
<p>Big Apple Daddy, It’s a shame you didn’t consider Bard for your son. It’s THE humanities school and they are desperate for boys since they’re at 70/30 now.</p>
<p>I will give that school a second look and see if they will consider 10th sophmore admissions. I thought of it before, but it seemed as if kids there all finish all high school in two years, which might be a bit too fast for him. Is that right?</p>
<p>“I thought of it before, but it seemed as if kids there all finish all high school in two years, which might be a bit too fast for him. Is that right?”</p>
<p>Yes that’s right. High school two years and then two-year associate’s degree.</p>
<p>“Yes, programs that weren’t there before, I would guess?”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, at least there are programs available that weren’t before, and some kids will participate, though maybe only a small percentage. In my own experience, there are some programs that don’t exist at lower performing schools that would benefit all kids – chorus for instance – everyone can participate in that. It is one of my pet peeves that our local middle school does not offer chorus. They have a pretty good band and orchestra, however. But some people want to get rid of the band and orchestra because not enough lower performing kids participate. </p>
<p>So, I will turn your question around – How does getting rid of these programs help lower performing kids?</p>
<pre><code>Report Problem Post Reply
</code></pre>
<p>“So, I will turn your question around – How does getting rid of these programs help lower performing kids?”</p>
<p>I don’t get the question. Who advocates getting rid of anything? My question was somewhat personal. How does a small group of high-performing kids, in a bubble, benefit the school as a whole. It wasn’t rhetorical. I really don’t get that. The school in question was crowded before and now even more so, so I would think it’s slightly negative. But as I said before, I’m going to take advantage.</p>
<p>Well, sometimes it helps. First, often facilities are improved. More affluent parents fund raise for computers, better libraries, musical instruments, art supplies,etc. Usually, schools require that these facilities be available for all students in the school. Some kids do mix with those in other classes on sports teams, in school activities, etc. Mixing with kids with higher aspirations can raise kids aspirations. Kids may meet parents who are doctors, lawyers, bankers–and these may be the only professionals they know.</p>
<p>Sometimes the same teachers will teach different abilitiy groups. Sometimes, teachers will agree to teach at the school in the hope that with seniority they will get to teach the “better” classes. This means teachers who wouldn’t otherwise set foot in the school take jobs there.</p>
<p>"Well, sometimes it helps. First, often facilities are improved. More affluent parents fund raise for computers, better libraries, musical instruments. etc. Usually, schools require that these facilities be available for all students in the school. "</p>
<p>Ok, that makes a little more sense. It probably happens elsewhere, but not here.</p>
<p>Oh, I’m just arguing, feeling irritated today, not with you Zoosermom, I guess, but with the idea around here that music, art, and other programs are not necessary in our schools. I think this mentality is one of the reasons that people around here are abandoning public schools in our area, moving to go to other schools out in the burbs (that offer more programs) or to private ones.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’ll understand where I’m coming from if I tell you that today I am going to a meeting of teachers and parents who feel that the administration in this district is not listening to their concerns.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Net plus for freedom, that is very interesting.</p>
<p>You see, I wouldnt label a policy that selectively grants choice as a freedom-promoting policy.</p>
<p>Punishing people for being wealthy won’t solve anything. It never has. It never will.</p>