[lug] BVSD Windows vs Mac craziness

[Bear Giles]

Nate Duehr wrote:

> Bear Giles wrote:
>
>> ... and nobody will touch "career-death" struggling students.
>
To be clear, I was referring to the absolutist policies that require the 
bottom 5% of performers be terminated every year or two, or at least 
have increasingly severe financial penalties.  In this environment 
teachers would literally have to choose between helping the neediest 
children and losing their job "for poor performance" within a few years.

> Only if their parent's don't care and don't find them an alternative 
> school environment that specializes in such students.  It WOULD exist, 
> and it WOULD be more expensive for those parents.

Why would those parents have to pay more?  What happened to the social 
guarantee that all children are entitled to a free education? 

> It's all about personal drive and motivation.  Parents are far more 
> important in that than any teacher can ever be.

I strongly disagree.  It's true with involved parents, but I'm sure 
they're a minority.  My parents were supportive when I was very young 
(think K-3 science kits, etc.), but by the the time my sister and I hit 
Jr. High they couldn't be bothered.  Hell, they actively prevented 
advanced placements by the school.  My teachers and BSA troopmaster were 
far more important than my parents.  I suspect that's true of most 
working-class and poor kids.

> Bouncing the question off parents is not worse.  I truly believe that 
> some parents WOULD screw their kids over and not send them to 
> traditional schools where they'd learn basics instead of religion... 
> but... that's the parents and the family's problem.

No, it's the kid's problem.  He's the one getting short-shifted.  One of 
the major purposes of public schools is to act as a safety net that 
looks out for the children when the parents don't.  We could lose that 
with charter schools that have a vested financial interest in keeping 
the parents happy.

Bear