http://www.whyboysfail.com/2009/12/15/if-i-had-a-payroll-shed-be-one-it/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:08:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.whyboysfail.com/2009/12/15/if-i-had-a-payroll-shed-be-one-it/#comment-13290 Anonymous Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:42:00 +0000 http://www.whyboysfail.com/?p=1265#comment-13290 It is indeed a very nice shot of your book. However, the article itself is very interesting, in that it gets to the heart of regular issues involving charter schools and into some that are special. The fact that the woman is holding your book, that the charter school in question is an all boys charter school, and that the question of it being an all boys school and the reason for it (presumably to deal with poor educational performance of boys, since they had your book) was not an issue in the controversy over the school shows that people there understand the significance of the issue of boys educational deficiencies. The controversies had to do with two issues, cherry picking and the relation of the charter school to overall desegregation efforts, of which Little Rock is a particularly significant city for historical reasons. The fact that it was felt necessary to put in the 80% requirements shows the understanding of the dangers of cherry picking and the problems that even a small amount of that can have on the ability of the regular school district to try to deal with the educational deficiencies of the majority of students. Just look at the figures I provided a little while ago on Washington, D.C. In this case, it would be interesting to see what the effect really would be, because all of the (presumably higher achieving) girls would be left in the regular schools (or already existing charter schools, etc.). I can sympathize with the plight of the charter school organizers. They have no direct control over who applies. And within any subset it is likely going to be those who have parents who are more motivated to have their children succeed educationally who will apply. The article says that the school plans to serve up to 696 boys. What if they only get 700 applications, and only 50% of them "meet the required specifications?" From the article, though, it looks like the expectation is that they will get many more applications than they will have openings. But even under that circumstance, the difficulties in trying to comply with the 80% requirements which the article describes look like they would be considerable. The effects on desegregation are another story completely. Many districts are still under desegregation court orders from the 50s and 60s. And many districts are trying to get out of those court orders after all of these years as described in the article. But these court orders, as I understand their interpretation, make no allowances for charter schools. They specify a range of acceptable racial makeup for all schools in a district. If a charter school falls outside that range, it can effect whether the district as a whole is complying with the court order, which can then hinder efforts to put aside the court order after decades of compliance by the district. This is a very interesting article. It is indeed a very nice shot of your book. However, the article itself is very interesting, in that it gets to the heart of regular issues involving charter schools and into some that are special. The fact that the woman is holding your book, that the charter school in question is an all boys charter school, and that the question of it being an all boys school and the reason for it (presumably to deal with poor educational performance of boys, since they had your book) was not an issue in the controversy over the school shows that people there understand the significance of the issue of boys educational deficiencies. The controversies had to do with two issues, cherry picking and the relation of the charter school to overall desegregation efforts, of which Little Rock is a particularly significant city for historical reasons. The fact that it was felt necessary to put in the 80% requirements shows the understanding of the dangers of cherry picking and the problems that even a small amount of that can have on the ability of the regular school district to try to deal with the educational deficiencies of the majority of students. Just look at the figures I provided a little while ago on Washington, D.C. In this case, it would be interesting to see what the effect really would be, because all of the (presumably higher achieving) girls would be left in the regular schools (or already existing charter schools, etc.). I can sympathize with the plight of the charter school organizers. They have no direct control over who applies. And within any subset it is likely going to be those who have parents who are more motivated to have their children succeed educationally who will apply. The article says that the school plans to serve up to 696 boys. What if they only get 700 applications, and only 50% of them “meet the required specifications?” From the article, though, it looks like the expectation is that they will get many more applications than they will have openings. But even under that circumstance, the difficulties in trying to comply with the 80% requirements which the article describes look like they would be considerable. The effects on desegregation are another story completely. Many districts are still under desegregation court orders from the 50s and 60s. And many districts are trying to get out of those court orders after all of these years as described in the article. But these court orders, as I understand their interpretation, make no allowances for charter schools. They specify a range of acceptable racial makeup for all schools in a district. If a charter school falls outside that range, it can effect whether the district as a whole is complying with the court order, which can then hinder efforts to put aside the court order after decades of compliance by the district. This is a very interesting article.

]]>