If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the..

[Disir]

I thought you'd never ask.

Where Do Public School Teachers Send Own Kids? | RealClearPolitics

From the link:

Guy walks into a restaurant. Says to the waitress, "I'd like some scrambled eggs and some kind words." She brings the eggs. The guy smiles, "Now how about the kind words?" Waitress whispers, "Don't eat the eggs."

This brings us to the fact that urban public school teachers are about two times more likely than non-teachers to send their own children to private schools. In other words, many public school teachers whisper to parents, "Don't eat the eggs."

About 11 percent of all parents -- nationwide, rural and urban -- send their children to private schools. The numbers are much higher in urban areas. One study found that in Philadelphia a staggering 44 percent of public school teachers send their own kids to private schools. In Cincinnati and Chicago, 41 and 39 percent of public school teachers, respectively, pay for a private school education for their children. In Rochester, New York, it's 38 percent. In Baltimore it's 35 percent, San Francisco is 34 percent and New York-Northeastern New Jersey is 33 percent. In Los Angeles nearly 25 percent of public school teachers send their kids to private school versus 16 percent of Angelenos who do so.


Mark

Mark, can you bring me the actual study?

I want to look at the questions of the survey. The institution that conducted the study is highly suspect.
TIA

Public schools no place for teachers' kids - Washington Times

Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.

Public school teachers told the Fordham Institute’s surveyors that private and religious schools impose greater discipline, achieve higher academic achievement and offer overall a better atmosphere.

I would think that if there was something fishy about the results of the survey, the NEA, school unions, and the AFT, would have commented on it. You would think that if there was counter evidence, they would have presented it.

edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/Fwd-1.1_7.pdf

If that doesn't work, punch in

Where Do Public School Teachers Send Their Kids to School?
By: Denis P. Doyle, Brian Diepold, and David A. DeSchryver

The source data for the report was the US Census of 2000. Interestingly, the 1980 Census showed a similar trend, but not nearly as statistically relevant. In other words, things have gotten worse, and more teachers are getting their kids out of the public school system.

Ah, yes, here are some numbers and here is some speculation as to what it really means.

 

[Andylusion]

The Childean model (Chicago School) failed.

See here:
The Failings of Chile?s Education System: Institutionalized Inequality and a Preference for the Affluent | Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Chile: The Most Pro-Market School System in the World, Part 1 | Diane Ravitch's blog

Chile: The Most Pro-Market School System in the World, Part 2 | Diane Ravitch's blog

Chile: The Most Pro-Market School System in the World, Part 3 | Diane Ravitch's blog

Mario Waissbluth's April 2014 piece:
Chile: Dismantling the Most Pro-Market Education System in the World | Diane Ravitch's blog


You can bullshit some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Cuba has a better education system and a higher literacy rate.

Ironic! I have read exactly the links you posted, and I would cite them as proof I'm right. Every single quote below, came from the links you just posted. I have read every single one of those links before. All of them.

While eighth grade test results from 2000 for public municipal schools showed an average test score of 60.5 (out of 100), subsidized private schools produced an increased score of 67. Fee-paying private schools had the best scores of the three, achieving an average score of 80, nearly 20 points above municipal scores.

Would you rather everyone go to the school with the lowest test scores?

Or would you rather everyone that can, be allowed to try for the better school?

You want EVERYONE to do poorly. I want everyone the opportunity to try for the best possible school. Not forced into the worst school.

Unleashing market forces generated steady growth in per capita income since 1985 until now. As compared with Latin America, this index was the same in 1990, but today Chile’s is 50% higher. Similarly, the UNDP’s Human Development Index is far above that of the region, although well below the average OECD value.

Better than anywhere else in the Region. 50% higher than the rest of Latin America.

It should be said that, as in the economy, in education there have been some promising results. Attendance to basic school, high school and tertiary education is similar to the OECD average. PISA results have shown one of the best improvements in the world from 2000 to 2009, although, strangely, the internal testing system does not show any significant improvement in the average or in the inequality of results. Public spending in education is 4% of GDP, as compared with 6% in the OECD countries.

They are spending less, and getting fantastic results. The problem, the writer claims, is with 'inequality of results'.

Would you rather have a more equal system, that was a poor as the rest of Latin America? Or a more unequal system, that produces the best results in Latin America?

See you people on the left, would rather have terrible education that was equally bad, then a unequal education that is better.

That's sad.

The only other real criticism, is that they are far behind the OECD.

The best proof is that the very expensive Chilean private schools show international results well below the OECD average.

Well CRAP... most of Latin America is far behind the OECD average. You are talking about an entire country where most people were uneducated up to the 1980s.

No matter what system you put in place, they would be behind the OECD average.

This system, has produced the best results of any Latin American country.

Remember, Chile is surrounded by state run, state funded, education systems. Yet they are leading in education in all of Latin America.

You need to compare Apples to Apples, not Apples to Oranges in the OECD.

When you compare Chile's free-market capitalist based system, to the rest of the crap State-run State-funded public education systems all over South America, they are leading the entire continent.

You are just cherry picking your information. The very links you cite, prove my point. Because I'm not cherry picking. In fact, I'm using YOUR information, to make my case.

And I am right. You are the one trying to bull sh!t everyone.

Here's a link for you to chew on.
Scaling Up in Chile - Education Next : Education Next

On international tests, Chilean students in 2006 outperformed those of all other Latin American countries in reading and were second only to Uruguay in math

OUTPERFORMED ALL OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES.

That's simple enough to understand, don't you think?

I can't remember where I read this, but I read that now people from other Latin Countries, are sending their kids to Chile, because the education system is better there, than in their own countries 'free public education' system.

If I find that link, I'll post that for you too.

So, you can put a sock in your bullshit. The facts are there for anyone to see, even in your own citations.

 

[Disir]

They failed. Your bullshit failed. You are lying through your teeth. It isn't "everyone has an opportunity". Hence, the fact that they are ditching the system.

It's all the reason behind the protests.

 

[Disir]

None of this happened:
http://rt.com/news/157880-chile-student-protest-violence/

 

[Andylusion]

They failed. Your bullshit failed. You are lying through your teeth. It isn't "everyone has an opportunity". Hence, the fact that they are ditching the system.

It's all the reason behind the protests.

I just posted from *YOUR LINKS*.

And you claim I lied? Name one thing I lied about. And try not to implicated yourself, given I quoted from *YOUR LINKS*.

 

[Andylusion]

None of this happened:
Chile police clash with activists as thousands protest for free education (PHOTOS, VIDEO) ? RT News

Completely irrelevant.

Does that change the test scores? Does that change the quality of the education? Protesting, doesn't change the fact they have the best education in Latin America, by absolutely any relevant measure.

If I round up enough people on this forum to protest *YOU*, does that mean you really are a lying idiotic moron? Or does that just mean I stirred up a bunch of people?

 

[Toro]

If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds

n abundance of evidence reveals charter schools are largely a sham that benefits the white ruling elite while destroying the public education that has been the foundation of this nation.

Add a June 4 Washington Post column entitled, "Why Hedge Funds Love Charter Schools," to the journalistic case of the people vs. charter schools. Overall, the commentary adds to the larger charge that charter schools are making a lot of people a lot of money. However, it emphasizes that the radioactive sector of the runaway financial sector, hedge funds, are in on profiting from the charter school racket. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss cites an analysis by Alan Singer, a teacher who works with the Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York:

Obscure laws can have a very big impact on social policy, including obscure changes in the United States federal tax code. The 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, included provisions from the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The law provided tax incentives for seven years to businesses that locate and hire residents in economically depressed urban and rural areas. The tax credits were reauthorized for 2008-2009, 2010-2011, and 2012-2013.

As a result of this change to the tax code, banks and equity funds that invest in charter schools in underserved areas can take advantage of a very generous tax credit. They are permitted to combine this tax credit with other tax breaks while they also collect interest on any money they lend out. According to one analyst, the credit allows them to double the money they invested in seven years.

This is part of the answer to the question that Strauss poses at the beginning of her column: "One of the features of corporate school reform is the interest that Wall Street has shown in supporting charter schools. Why?"

Well, there are more financial beneficiaries to be listed in the answer to that question:

The real estate industry, which already receives huge tax breaks as it gentrifies communities, also stands to benefit by promoting charter schools and helping them buy up property, or rent, in inner city communities. One real estate company, Eminent Properties Trust, boasts on its website:

"Our investment portfolio of nearly $3 billion includes megaplex movie theatres and adjacent retail, public charter schools, and other destination recreational and specialty investments. This portfolio includes over 160 locations spread across 34 states with over 200 tenants."

The Charter management group Charter Schools USA recommends that rental costs should not exceed 20 percent of a school’s budget. However the Miami Heraldreported that in 2011, 19 charter schools in Miami-Dade and Broward exceeded this figure and one in Miami Gardens paid 43 percent. The Herald called south Florida charter schools a “$400-million-a-year powerhouse backed by real-estate developers and promoted by politicians, but with little oversight.” Its report found charters paying exorbitant fees to management companies and that many of the highest rents were paid to landlords with ties to the management companies running the schools.

It does not take long to see a trend here: charter schools are a Trojan horse that allows the private market to turn a public education system into a large financial stream of profit - and at an increased cost to the taxpayer in many cases.

That brings us to the topic of Strauss's article – hedge funds:

Read the rest here:
If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds

Good stuff.

Most of the successful hedge fund managers I know are giving most of their money away to make the world a better place. This is one example.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
more boring race card tripe from the loser Left

charter schools are a godsend to many MINORITIES trapped in violent, failing public schools

the Left's opposition to charter schools and vouchers is guided by their being in the pocket of public school unions; and against anything that might make the government smaller

 

[Disir]

None of this happened:
Chile police clash with activists as thousands protest for free education (PHOTOS, VIDEO) ? RT News

Completely irrelevant.

Does that change the test scores? Does that change the quality of the education? Protesting, doesn't change the fact they have the best education in Latin America, by absolutely any relevant measure.

If I round up enough people on this forum to protest *YOU*, does that mean you really are a lying idiotic moron? Or does that just mean I stirred up a bunch of people?

No, they don't have access to education. It did exactly what I said it did. Further, teaching to the test which boils down to rote memorization for a limited time is not learning. There is no retention of information. Education is reserved for the elite.

Protest me all you want. Pull as many IDs as you can. You're pretending that it is success and it isn't. This is why Chile has been going through an overhaul and discarding the Chicago School in almost everything.

You can pretend that those protests are not the backlash of your alleged competition. But, it is.

 

[Disir]

If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds

n abundance of evidence reveals charter schools are largely a sham that benefits the white ruling elite while destroying the public education that has been the foundation of this nation.

Add a June 4 Washington Post column entitled, "Why Hedge Funds Love Charter Schools," to the journalistic case of the people vs. charter schools. Overall, the commentary adds to the larger charge that charter schools are making a lot of people a lot of money. However, it emphasizes that the radioactive sector of the runaway financial sector, hedge funds, are in on profiting from the charter school racket. Washington Post journalist Valerie Strauss cites an analysis by Alan Singer, a teacher who works with the Department of Teaching, Literacy and Leadership at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York:

Obscure laws can have a very big impact on social policy, including obscure changes in the United States federal tax code. The 2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, included provisions from the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000. The law provided tax incentives for seven years to businesses that locate and hire residents in economically depressed urban and rural areas. The tax credits were reauthorized for 2008-2009, 2010-2011, and 2012-2013.

As a result of this change to the tax code, banks and equity funds that invest in charter schools in underserved areas can take advantage of a very generous tax credit. They are permitted to combine this tax credit with other tax breaks while they also collect interest on any money they lend out. According to one analyst, the credit allows them to double the money they invested in seven years.

This is part of the answer to the question that Strauss poses at the beginning of her column: "One of the features of corporate school reform is the interest that Wall Street has shown in supporting charter schools. Why?"

Well, there are more financial beneficiaries to be listed in the answer to that question:

The real estate industry, which already receives huge tax breaks as it gentrifies communities, also stands to benefit by promoting charter schools and helping them buy up property, or rent, in inner city communities. One real estate company, Eminent Properties Trust, boasts on its website:

"Our investment portfolio of nearly $3 billion includes megaplex movie theatres and adjacent retail, public charter schools, and other destination recreational and specialty investments. This portfolio includes over 160 locations spread across 34 states with over 200 tenants."

The Charter management group Charter Schools USA recommends that rental costs should not exceed 20 percent of a school’s budget. However the Miami Heraldreported that in 2011, 19 charter schools in Miami-Dade and Broward exceeded this figure and one in Miami Gardens paid 43 percent. The Herald called south Florida charter schools a “$400-million-a-year powerhouse backed by real-estate developers and promoted by politicians, but with little oversight.” Its report found charters paying exorbitant fees to management companies and that many of the highest rents were paid to landlords with ties to the management companies running the schools.

It does not take long to see a trend here: charter schools are a Trojan horse that allows the private market to turn a public education system into a large financial stream of profit - and at an increased cost to the taxpayer in many cases.

That brings us to the topic of Strauss's article – hedge funds:

Read the rest here:
If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds

Good stuff.

Most of the successful hedge fund managers I know are giving most of their money away to make the world a better place. This is one example.

How much do they make from that whole giving away thing?

 

[Andylusion]

None of this happened:
Chile police clash with activists as thousands protest for free education (PHOTOS, VIDEO) ? RT News

Completely irrelevant.

Does that change the test scores? Does that change the quality of the education? Protesting, doesn't change the fact they have the best education in Latin America, by absolutely any relevant measure.

If I round up enough people on this forum to protest *YOU*, does that mean you really are a lying idiotic moron? Or does that just mean I stirred up a bunch of people?

No, they don't have access to education. It did exactly what I said it did. Further, teaching to the test which boils down to rote memorization for a limited time is not learning. There is no retention of information. Education is reserved for the elite.

Protest me all you want. Pull as many IDs as you can. You're pretending that it is success and it isn't. This is why Chile has been going through an overhaul and discarding the Chicago School in almost everything.

You can pretend that those protests are not the backlash of your alleged competition. But, it is.

You missed the entire point, and now you are lying.

The point I was making is that if I got a bunch of people to protest YOU, according to your own belief system here, we would be right about you.

Your entire argument now, is a mass assumption that if people protest, then they are right. So according to your belief system, if we protest you, we're right, and you are an idiot, because us protesting is proof enough.

That is in fact your basic argument. You can't argue the facts. I've posted the facts. You can't deny them, or argue against them. Your claims have already been proven false, even by your own links that you yourself cited. Further, this ignores that there are in fact public schools, that are availible to everyone.

Claim: People don't have access to education.
Fact: Your own link cited higher levels of school attendence than ever before in Chilean history, even under the prior state-run state-funded education system.

Claim: Their system only teaches to the test.
Fact: They still outperform all other latin countries, and last I checked we have 'teaching to the test' here in the US. I don't see you claiming our scores are all artificially high from teaching to the test. If your arguement about teaching to the test, is correct, then we should invalidate our own education system first. You can't apply a double standard. Teaching to the test is good for the US, but bad for Chile?

So you can't argue the statistics, or the facts, or the educaitonal outcomes.

The only argument you can make is "people are protesting!". Well crap, there are thousands of people in the US that think we didn't land on the moon. If we gathered them all up, and protested in Washington, does that mean they are right? We can just ignore the facts, and if 'people protested' then they are right?

Can I gather hundreds of IDs on this forum, and protest that you are an idiot, and therefore because we protested, we are right, and you are an idiot?

Or maybe protesting doesn't change the facts. Maybe just because a bunch of people run around screaming with signs, doesn't mean the world is coming to an end in 2012.

I'm not saying they are automatically wrong either. If the facts, matched up with the protest, I'd agree. If literacy was the lowest in Latin America. If the test scores were the lowest in the region. If school attendence was the lowest in Chilean history.

If all of that was true, I'd be on your side of the arugment. I'd be on the protesters side of the arguement.

But the facts are against you. You can just flat out lie about the facts, and claim education is terrible, but you are just lying. That's all there is to it.

 

[Andylusion]

If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds



Read the rest here:
If You Want to Know the Truth About Charter Schools, Follow the Money to the Hedge Funds

Good stuff.

Most of the successful hedge fund managers I know are giving most of their money away to make the world a better place. This is one example.

How much do they make from that whole giving away thing?

Make? Most of the charity projects I know about, they don't 'make' anything.

Now, I get it. You are not talking about all the wonderful charity projects that hedge funds give money to. You don't care about the good things they do.

You are only talking about charter schools, and how hedge funds have invested into many of them. I get that.

And like all investments, they get a return on their investment. I get it.

The problem is, I don't see that as a bad thing. You, apparently, do.

Which goes back to the fundamental difference between right-wing and left-wing.

Right-wing, see's any mutually beneficial system, as being a positive for everyone.

Left-wing, automatically assumes without any reason whatsoever, that profit is inherently bad, and that if someone is making a profit, then someone is somehow being screwed.

Yet, when I bought my car, both me and the person I bought it from, mutually benefitted. I got a nice luxury car for a low price. He got rid of a car he didn't need for a sum of money he wanted. Both of us were better off after the deal. Neither of us got screwed. If one of us did, we would not have conducted the transaction.

Similarly, a hedge fund invested into a school, that allowed kids who would have not had the opportunity for a better education, a chance to get that education, at a cost.

The children benefitted, by getting a better education. The hedge fund benefitted by getting a return on their investment.

Both are better off. No one is screwed.

You would rather not have the hedge fund make a profit, even though that would force more kids into an inferior school system. As long as someone doesn't make a profit, who cares if people have worse education? That's the sick twisted world of the left-wing politics.

Who cares if 63% of the Chinese are making less than $2 a day, and barely eating.... as long as no one is profitting?

That's left-wing ideology at work.

 

[Toro]

How much do they make from that whole giving away thing?

Nothing.

They make a stupid amount of money, and most of them know it. However, at some point, it's just ego and a number. They don't need it. So they give it away. That number is usually around $100 million. Once they make that much money, most of them set up a foundation to distribute to the charities of their choice.

I was meeting with a manager a few days ago who has set up clinics in Africa to treat cataracts, which causes blindness. He said he wants to make the most impact he can with the money he's earned, and he reasoned that one high-impact charity would be a simple procedure that leads to a high rate of blindness that can be easily cured. So he's taking his kids and grandkids to Ethiopia this summer to work at one of these clinics. He's an outstanding human being and perhaps an extreme example, but that's what many of these guys - or their wives! - do.