Comment by gshubert17 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gshubert17 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I taught computing for 13 years at a public charter high-school. It doesn't charge tuition (it's a public school), but does have a dress code, and a commitment to a curriculum based on E. D. Hirsch's core knowledge program in grade school and on classical, liberal arts great books in high school.

Admission is by lottery if there are more applicants than places, not by cherry-picking applicants. They hire teachers with subject-matter degrees and experience: they have some PhDs and a couple ABDs (all but dissertation). Half-jokingly they said they didn't look to hire people with teaching certificates, but wouldn't hold that against them. I had a master's degree in computer science and worked summers to get another master's.

The school was smaller (maybe 700 total students K-12; the class of 2022 graduated 26), which right there, I think, made for fewer behavior problems. There was a well-thought-out discipline policy which was enforced by the administration and backed up by the board and most parents. After all, parents had made a choice to not go to the regular district schools but enroll in this school instead.

I agree that the odds are much better for school success with smaller sizes, a focused curriculum (whether it's International Baccalaureate, Core Knowledge, STEM, arts, or whatever), highly qualified teachers, and supportive parents.

>Admission is by lottery if there are more applicants than places, not by cherry-picking applicants.

Filtering out kids who's parents aren't willing or able to complete the application process is the cherry-picking.

Yes, it's a big step for parents to leave the default neighborhood school, look over the various options, even staying in the same city, let alone moving to a different district. I agree with you there.

The admissions people take some time to represent the whole story or big picture to prospective parents, because the school is not for everybody. I don't think it's cherry-picking to encourage parents to find the best school for their children, even if it isn't yours.

The school accepted applications from parents who had had unsatisfactory experiences at former schools, who were willing to go through the extra steps to try to get better outcomes for their students. The school had its share of free-and-reduced-lunch students and students with individual education plans and such.

I heard parents give heartfelt thanks to everyone at the school who had helped their child overcome what other schools termed learning disabilities. Is it the opposite of cherry-picking to accept a student other schools have, in effect, given up on? I believe the small size of the school and individualized attention helped many students in similar situations.

It still sounds like cherry picking. Is there bus service from all poor neighborhoods to and from the charter school? Or is it only wealthy families that are not working multiple jobs and can afford to drive their kids to and from the school everyday that can consider sending their children there?

> I don't think it's cherry-picking to encourage parents to find the best school for their children, even if it isn't yours.

Why? Because "cherry-picking" is bad and the best things for children are good?

It's, of course, exactly cherry-picking to find the children with the most interested and motivated parents, then filter them down to the ones that you like best. Fuck the kids with bad or no parents.

If I'm a parent who is typically interested and motivated, am I committing a sin against social justice if I am interested and motivated in my children's education and work to provide opportunities for them to learn?

You're not sinning, you're just reacting to incentives.

This isn't a moral condemnation of you, it's just the fact-based explanation for why schools that you have to apply to produce better academic outcomes than default public schooling. If those public schools could just drop the cohort of students whose parents couldn't be arsed to apply to a special school, their quality would also go up.

So what do you propose, that they send out applications at random to households in the community?

There is bias in everything, but at least they aren't adding more than needs there needs to be.

I don't propose anything. I'm just pointing out that the point that kicked off this line applies to charter schools too.

What part of the original “being able to kick students out” are you claiming is happening here?

I get a feeling the only way a school can satisfy your standard for "not cherry picking" are those armed with Omnipotence

Pointing out that a bias exists is not always a call to eliminate that bias. The fact that merely requiring an application rather than being the default option improves average outcomes isn't a problem that needs to be solved. It's just something that should be kept in mind when comparing schools.

Right.

At some point, some school is going to have to take the kids who don’t bother applying, since we can’t put 100% of schools behind an application and preserve its benefits, and we should not be surprised that such schools do worse, if the ones who do apply happen to be better.

Open lottery admission isn't the same as universal retention. Some charters and even magnets later "counsel out" admitted kids who act up, perform poorly on tests, or need expensive extra services, saying the school isn't the right fit for them. Traditional district public schools don't have this option and usually wind up taking back the kids who wash out of the choice schools.

I have certainly heard this from some teachers in non-charter schools, and I've seen one student asked not to return to the charter school where I teach part-time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com