[HDThoreaun]

> It isn't mysterious: you selected the best students, so your results will be the best.

You're implying that individual results don't change by grouping the good students together. In your vision the good students stay good and the bad stay bad. I don't agree. The good students become great by surrounding them with other good students.

[lukeschlather]

If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students.

And the charter school gets to take credit for the "good" outcome while the public school gets blamed for the bad outcome that is a direct result of the good outcome.

Which, if we accept your premise, suggests that the charter schools aren't providing any net benefit, they're just taking credit. If this is really the way we want to operate things we could just do it in public schools.

[lotsofpulp]

> If that's true then the converse is also true: bad students become bad by surrounding them with other bad students.

The converse does not have to be true, only the contrapositive.

And in the case of a human’s tendencies, it is easier to become less disciplined than it is to become more disciplined. Bad habits are easier and likelier to pickup than good habits. Forming a tight knit high trust family/community is much more difficult than dissolving it. Etc.

[HDThoreaun]

I do think that the students who don't get accepted into the selective schools need better options. It's just when the options are keep all the students together or separate them and some will become better and some will become worse I think providing the students who want to succeed with a way to accomplish their goals is the correct choice. Hopefully there will be another option that isn't so exclusionary in the future.

I'm not super interested in who gets the credit here. If the public schools were able or willing to kick out problematic students like the charter schools then I think we should be doing that instead of charters. But that's not the reality. So yes, I do think that outcomes overall are better, at least in my district, because of charters.

[lukeschlather]

You sidestepped my point. Segregating all the underperformers into one place causes harm and you're ignoring that harm, assuming that the benefit of segregating the high performers is more important.

And you are in fact crediting the charter school with the benefit while ensuring that public schools receive blame for any harm that results.

I think you're actually arguing against universal instruction, that we shouldn't educate all students. Which we could do in public schools also! But you're not suggesting that at all.

[HDThoreaun]

I don't think I'm ignoring the harm. I am accepting it. We can get into the utilitarian calculus, but before even considering that I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't. And really that's the end of the story for me. Maybe the total outcome is worse because the kicked out students cause much bigger problems than they would otherwise but that doesn't mean we should force the other students to suffer. I don't feel right dooming those kids to a poor education.

The public schools do deserve blame for putting all the under privileged kids together. The charters deserve credit for allowing them to separate themselves. I don't think that's intrinsic to public schooling, it's just the circumstance we are in.

[lukeschlather]

> I don't think it's acceptable to force students who want to succeed into classrooms with those that don't

Now you're ascribing a specific cause and moralizing, assuming that it's harder for some subset of students because they want to fail, and that they deserve to fail. The utilitarian calculus does matter, you feel fine dooming some set of kids to a poor education because you think they deserve it.

No child deserves a poor education. We do have to choose who we prioritize and I don't really think your analysis of who "deserves" more help is sound.

[tcbawo]

Equating underperforming students with disciplinary problem students seems to be a common problem in this thread. There are many underperforming students who would perform much better without being subjected to a threatening or harassing environment. Public schools attempt to provide universal education, which is at direct odds with bad-faith students that poison the well. In fact, in some places where this is legal, public schools get better when they can expel criminal minors into the charter system. Separating the worst offenders from the other students might also match these students with resources that are most equipped to help them (eg. counselors that might help to reduce gang violence).

[0xParlay]

Those “underperformers” aren’t being helped in either case. If we can dilute these problematic people into the general population maybe we won’t notice the pool smells distinctly like urine - aka the kiddie pool.

Education isn’t hard or expensive. Providing therapy for years of trauma and neglect is. Trying to focus on algebra when your home life is totally whack is hard. Otherwise what’s the cost of education.. chalk and plastic chairs?

Valuing public welfare is great, but so are the virtues that promote healthy families. Education is done by parents and there’s lots of adults with children who aren’t parents. Personal responsibility is a concept that will actually enrage otherwise intelligent people

[s1artibartfast]

I think it's very much unclear how much harm it does to segregate the disruptors.

How much good does it do a violent and disruptive student to have a quiet and studious one in the same classroom?

On the other hand, it's obvious how much bad such a disruptive student does to all of the other children.

Moreover, it there is no reason whatsoever to think harm would in any way be symmetrical.