Placement testing for charter school. Results: I'm a failure.

[MomatHWTK]

This blog article links to sources- you'll have to judge for yourself the reliability of same. But, at least it used sources. 

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/most-charter-schools-are-public-schools-in-name-only/

[pinkmint]

Honestly, the way we were treated the other day it would not surprise me if charter schools set up obstacles to keep out their less preferred type of student. I don't know if it's true but that's exactly how it seemed to me. We left there feeling completely defeated and unwelcome and I can't help but wonder if that was intentional on their part.

[Starr]

It's called "cream-skimming."

 

It's one of the reasons people get up in arms about charter schools in their districts, run by the public system.  If it is public, it is public.  

 

My son went to a cream-skimming private school.  I had mixed feelings about it, but I figure private is private and we paid through the nose for it on top of our taxes.  But public is public and it ought to be PUBLIC.

 

I'm a fan of a lot of things about charter schools, mostly related to local control and focused and unified curriculum.  But I am NOT in favor of public-schools being able to cream-skim.

 

[Alicia64]

I haven't read all four pages, but that woman was bullying you. Not now, of course, but once you've been homeschooling for years those types of bullies won't get much traction w/ you.

 

I used to get easily freaked out. In fact, I won't bore you but my son said something to a doctor once who almost called cps on me. It was absolutely a matter of miscommunication and the completely dumb doctor didn't handle the situation well at all.

 

It all got straightened out, but I ended up in my van with the kids crying. It was awful. My kids were 7 at the time and they're 13 now.

 

These types of events happen to a lot of us.

 

Yes, managing your depression is the absolute first thing to do. A regular GP doctor can prescribe something. It's 2016 -- not 1916. So much can be done for depression today that wasn't available 100 years ago. Don't suffer needlessly.

 

Re: ruining your kids. Absolutely ridiculous. At this age, kids need tons of play and parent-interaction and read-aloud books and Arthur (TV show) and running through the sprinklers and cuddles and being sung to sleep and playing at the park and making lemonade with Mama and watching Nemo a billion times etc. etc. etc.

 

Schools think what they do is brain surgery.

 

Engagement is when learning really happens. When you're engaged with your child -- unless there are special needs issues -- kids will blossom and learn.

 

But it's super hard to engage if you're depressed. Get the depression handled and turn on the Nemo.

 

Hugs (I would have been terribly hurt too),

 

Alley

 

 

[pinkmint]

Thanks so much, Alley. I do easily freak out about this kind of stuff and I really hope over time as a homeschooler I will get more confident. I was all bent out of shape when I first started this thread. I really let that morning at the charter school get to me. But I'm doing better now. My perspective is getting clearer. 

 

BTW I made an appointment in about 3 weeks (soonest I could get) for a meds talk with the doctor. I felt like it was an acheivement that I got off my antidepressant the last time I was pregnant but I'm in a different season now and I ain't too proud to admit I am thankful that medication for depression is available. 

[Retired]

My youngest son went to a k4 christian school, then K5 public school, then back to a different christian scshool for 1st grade.  The christian  school said my son was behind and the only reason they accepted him was my 4th grade student was ahead.  THe oldest was the student that made them look good.  (BUT the oldest had spent K4 Christian  school, K5 and 1st grade at one public school, 2nd-3rd another public school.)

 

The point in all the rabbling is your children are not behind.  The schools do not teach the same thing each years.  Its suppose to be accumulative so that by the end of 12 years they got everything. 

 

We had one school that taught multiplication facts in 3rd grade, another  didn't until 4th grade.

 

Its all arbitrary crap. 

 

I don't know like the above person said your child has a learning disorder or not but I do know having 2 kids I homeschool for 10 years.  They don't learn by some random group of education robots saying they should learn at the same age.

 

But I understand people don't' have choices and have to use public, charter, private school for education.  There is the chance your child has some developmental issues that has caused him to actually be behind.  This is not on you.  You are trying to give the kid the best education your able.  I don't' know the back ground about your homeschooling but obviously your trying to get the best for your kids.

 

Antidotal regarding by "behind child" .  I started homeschooling the younger one in 3rd grade.  He didn't really start enjoying reading until in was in 6th grade.  He then  read everything in sight and caught up.  He made a 29 on the ACT.  So behind does not mean a damn thing IMO. 

 

It sound like the charter lady is bias to homeschool and only wants student that have the right test scores to make her look good

 

 

 

 

[TechWife]

Charter schools do not have to accept any student who wants to go there. Unlike regular public schools, they can turn away students if they are at capacity. They can also have lotteries, and lotteries can be manipulated. There was a school in my town that got in trouble for manipulating their lottery.

 

The regular public schools in my county turn away students when they are at capacity. There is a "formula" that they use to decide who attends where when people request magnet schools or a specific school calendar. The only guarantee is that you can have a traditional calendar school available to you. If the school you want to go to is full, they can send you on to the nearest school that has a seat. As long as they provide bus service from the districted school, they are good to go! The likelihood of that system being manipulated is the same or higher than holding a lottery. 

[MinivanMom]

Charter schools do not have to accept any student who wants to go there. Unlike regular public schools, they can turn away students if they are at capacity. They can also have lotteries, and lotteries can be manipulated. There was a school in my town that got in trouble for manipulating their lottery.

 

They can also set certain parameters in their charter that keep undesirable children out.

 

We have a nationally-ranked charter high school that only accepts students who are ready for Algebra I in 9th grade. That automatically excludes any students who are not ready for Algebra I including many special needs students.

 

This charter high school holds a lottery as required by law, but rising 9th graders go into separate lotteries based on which math class they need to take in 9th (Alg I, Geo, or Alg II). This allows them to limit the number of 9th graders they take who aren't on the advanced math track. The official reason given for this is so that they will be able to make sure that the number of incoming 9th graders matches the types of math classes offered. In reality that makes no sense, because they could easily change which levels of math are offered each year to match the needs of the incoming class. The official lottery numbers on their website show that for this fall only 10 out of 150 incoming freshman were pulled from the Alg I lottery. The remaining students were pulled from the Geo and Alg II lotteries (split about 50/50) and will be taking either Geo or Alg II in 9th. That's cream-skimming.

[itsheresomewhere]

Charter schools, contrary to the misinformation spread, are public schools that are overseen by the government and funded by the taxpayers. Those lines on paper are laws about who can attend as I understand it. Please explain in detail what you mean rather than assuming I should just trust a stranger on the internet.

 

25% of public schooled kids in my state attend public charter schools. Most of them at one near their house, so this rumor or elitism seems suspicious to me. If they're so hard to get into why does every other kid in the area attend one? These kids are academically advanced, average and special needs who I personally know.

 

They can select what they want very easily. My DD used to attend one. I saw first hand cream skimming. They all have the same rules on paper but they don't follow it. The school DD was in had very few learning disabilities and barely had students outside of certain races/faith. Just enough to look like they met the state laws. It was an eye opening experience on how they can get around the rules yet look like they are following them.

[Arcadia]

We left there feeling completely defeated and unwelcome and I can't help but wonder if that was intentional on their part.

Some people are just high and mighty snobs. I had frontline people look down on my home zipcode because it is not in a tippy top costly area. I had strangers think I am ESL :lol: We had people who were downright rude until they notice where hubby works, than they were sugary sweet.

 

I was in marketing, I can deal with it then laugh at the way home. It is crappy humans, I am sorry you have to encounter them while you are feeling down.

 

A good friend was suicidal for a year, now she is comfortably self employed. It is okay to be on meds when you need it.

[Haiku]

The regular public schools in my county turn away students when they are at capacity.

Yet the regular public schools have to accept you; they may send you to farther-away school, but you are guaranteed a spot somewhere. Charter schools can just say no. No, you can't come.

[nrg]

Perhaps it is time for a little reverse snobbery. Who would ever want their very young children to be programmed to respond like robots to inane "academic" questioning? Let's firm up our understanding of child development and appropriate activities for kindergarten and the primary grades in terms of classical education and examine what misunderstandings are leading to "cream skimming" by looking for rote parlor tricks from little ones. 

 

As a young parent, I was quite susceptible to the false judgments of others. My asynchronous children never met anyone's standards for anything, and when they exceeded the artificial standards, they were judged negatively for that. I foolishly worked to have them meet standards. Do not be me (my parenting mantra for my grown children). Happily, I learned rather early to let us be us, do our best, and to discern which comments were helpful and which were just aimed at putting others down.

 

I know nothing about your home schooling, but I do know that you may comfortably let the comments of this institution roll smoothly off your back and move on.

[Corraleno]

Charter schools, contrary to the misinformation spread, are public schools that are overseen by the government and funded by the taxpayers.  Those lines on paper are laws about who can attend as I understand it.  Please explain in detail what you mean rather than assuming I should just trust a stranger on the internet. 

 

I'm sure there are charters that don't "skim the cream," but there are plenty that do, and lots of ways to do it. I can tell you how it worked with the 2 charters I was familiar with in our previous state.

 

Charter A was formed by a group of parents who were very upfront (among themselves, not publicly) about  their goal in creating a "publicly-funded private school." The first few years they were in operation, they had a very very minimal website with very little information on it. Emails asking how to apply, when the lottery would be held, etc., went unanswered. The *only* announcement for the lottery draw was a tiny notice in the back of the city newspaper, so basically the only people who entered the lottery were the original organizers and their friends. They also gave priority to children of employees, most of whom were also either the original organizers or their friends. They ended up with exactly what they set out to create — a "public" school that was overwhelmingly upper-middle-class and white in a school district that was predominantly poor and nonwhite. And once you establish the initial population, then it's easy to keep that going since priority for new admits goes to siblings of current students, plus you can screen new employees based on whether you would want their kids in your school. Add a tiny, token number of kids through the lottery each year to keep the state off your back.

 

Charter B, which my son attended for a year, was some sort of public/charter hybrid. They did not discriminate in terms of admissions, but they were ruthless about getting rid of any lower performing kids. They almost always had openings, because so many kids dropped out. They kept their English and math test scores so high because that was literally all they taught, and there was intensive reading, writing, and math homework every day, even for young kids. The principal explicitly stated that she considered it perfectly normal, even desirable, for kids to cry over their schoolwork, and if parents didn't agree then this was not the school for them. When I asked about accommodations for LDs, I was told that they "did not have the resources" for that and those students should enroll in their local PS. I spent a fair amount of time volunteering in DS's classroom and the way that DS, and a couple of other boys like him, were treated was brutal — and that was with me right there watching! The principal was not kidding about making kids cry. None of those three boys returned the following year, which was exactly what they wanted. 

Edited July 28, 2016 by Corraleno

[Susan in TX]

Honestly, the way we were treated the other day it would not surprise me if charter schools set up obstacles to keep out their less preferred type of student. I don't know if it's true but that's exactly how it seemed to me. We left there feeling completely defeated and unwelcome and I can't help but wonder if that was intentional on their part.

 

We had a somewhat similar experience with a charter school. My daughter was put on the waiting list and a spot came up but they wouldn't enroll her without her taking a placement test. They wanted her to take the released STAAR test from the previous year.  I refused. And we decided that school wasn't for us.

 

Susan in TX

[Susan in TX]

And here is just one article about how charter schools keep certain kids out http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2016/05/exclusive_public_schools_nola.html

 

Susan in TX

[TXBeth]

My girls are actually attending this particular charter this fall, so I obviously don't think it's horrible school. But I am shocked at the OP's experience. When we went to enroll, they let me know that DD10 would need to take a placement test coming from homeschool. It took about half an hour and then we had an interview with the principal just to get to know him. DD7 didn't have to take a test because she is coming from public school.

I really dislike the front office staff. We almost didn't enroll because they were rude and unhelpful the first time we went to ask questions.

I will say that in our talks with the principal we were very impressed with his vision. It doesn't seem to be a school that is focused on high test scores or pushing the kids. We actually chose it over another school specifically because we need a more laid back, low pressure environment this year. The principal values play and makes a priority for the kids to have PE and outside play time every day. Which makes me even more surprised that they had such ridiculous testing for OP's kids. :(

[Corraleno]

And here is just one article about how charter schools keep certain kids out http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2016/05/exclusive_public_schools_nola.html

 

Susan in TX

 

:cursing:

 

One of the charters that I mentioned used similar tactics. They also required attendance at an "informational meeting" prior to applying — a meeting that required knowing the organizers in order to get the not-publicly-advertised time, date, and location. Oh you missed the required meeting? Sorry, it's only held once a year, but you can try again next year!

 

They also tried to locate the school in a wealthy suburb that was at the very edge of the school district, in order to discourage parents from the poor parts of the city from applying. That backfired on them when they discovered that the residents didn't actually want a public school there — and the organizers couldn't very well stand up in a public zoning meeting and say "oh, don't worry, we have ways of keeping the riffraff out, it will just be for people like us." 

 

Edited July 29, 2016 by Corraleno

[Arcadia]

I really dislike the front office staff. We almost didn't enroll because they were rude and unhelpful the first time we went to ask questions.

...

Which makes me even more surprised that they had such ridiculous testing for OP's kids. :(

The gatekeepers are probably snobs :( I won't be surprised if home address plays a part in their attitude.

 

My oldest was the only one in his kindergarten cohort who did not attend preschool. Hubby and my academic qualifications make the school secretary take what I said about my kid's ability without question. Apparently checking the postgraduate box for parents qualifications on the family demographics questionnaire does wonders :(

[Zinnia]

There is a public charter in our area that doesn't offer lunch, after school programs,  or busing.  That limits who will apply. 

 

However, my kids attended a charter that was committed to being half refugee  students.  They had about 75% free lunch, busing, and lots of extra programs.  The budget was always, always a problem, and we ended up leaving for other issues (notably discipline, which was a hot mess), but that school truly did include everyone, just limited by a very random lottery.  

[Haiku]

How can a public school not offer lunch?

[LisaKinVA]

Big HUG!

 

If it makes you feel any better with regard to young children and testing...my highly gifted youngster purposely blew a test, because he thought it was funny to give incorrect answers/thought the test was dumb.  Although the tester "had" to officially stop the test there, she "unofficially" continued on giving him the more difficult questions -- which he answered flawlessly for several more levels.  She did mention that in her final report -- that the score did not, in her opinion, accurately reflect my son's abilities.

 

Kids in strange situations do things that are completely out of character.  Hungry, tired, and out of their element, even my highly social, outgoing 7yo will curl into a ball and cry -- or stare wide-eyed at clear instructions.  

[zoobie]

How can a public school not offer lunch?

I had never heard of this either, but I know it happens in some schools in NJ (in a regular public school, not charter) from a friend. They can go home for lunch or the PTO brings in pizza and bagels and sells them as a fundraiser. The school doesn't have a lunchroom or kitchen at all. I guess it's up to state law to mandate? Apparently the kids who don't have money just sit and watch the other kids eat. :( Edited July 29, 2016 by zoobie

[Zinnia]

How can a public school not offer lunch?

 

Where I live, charters can get approved for anything.  There is one that has class sizes of 8 as their thing, the refugee school my kids attended...lots of different things to differentiate.  But, they also have very wide parameters on what they have to offer.  And lunch and busing are not included.  They just opt out of the federal school lunch program.  But for a family that relies on school lunch, it means that the school is not a good option.  

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I had never heard of this either, but I know it happens in some schools in NJ (in a regular public school, not charter) from a friend. They can go home for lunch or the PTO brings in pizza and bagels and sells them as a fundraiser. The school doesn't have a lunchroom or kitchen at all. I guess it's up to state law to mandate? Apparently the kids who don't have money just sit and watch the other kids eat. :(

 

I think this is immoral. Children are going hungry, and other children are being taught not to care. How are parents OK with this? How are taxpayers OK with this?

[Bluegoat]

How can a public school not offer lunch?

 

Most elementary and middle schools here don't offer lunch regularly.  Kids that stay at school pack their own.  Especially in the city, many don't have lunch rooms, they were built when it was normal for kids to walk home for lunch.

[zoobie]

I think this is immoral. Children are going hungry, and other children are being taught not to care. How are parents OK with this? How are taxpayers OK with this?

 

Taxpayers aren't involved because the lunch is run by PTO. The kids without money are generally ESL students. My friend stopped volunteering for lunch duty over this because she tried to buy extra on her own and was stopped by the principal. The parents haven't given consent, and there's a no sharing food rule. The parents don't sign the form for consent because they can't afford to send in money and possibly can't read the form. I really, really don't get it either, and it bothered me every time she would chat about the process. Also, it's bagels. Or pizza. No vegetables. No fruit. I wouldn't want my kid eating that everyday, but there's something about sending in food? If you want to eat something else, you have to leave, which means someone has to pick up the child and take him back. I kept asking questions and she got irritated with me. She went to the same elementary school as a child, and they've never had a lunch room. I have never been to a school without a lunch room! 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Taxpayers aren't involved because the lunch is run by PTO. The kids without money are generally ESL students. My friend stopped volunteering for lunch duty over this because she tried to buy extra on her own and was stopped by the principal. The parents haven't given consent, and there's a no sharing food rule. The parents don't sign the form for consent because they can't afford to send in money and possibly can't read the form. I really, really don't get it either, and it bothered me every time she would chat about the process. Also, it's bagels. Or pizza. No vegetables. No fruit. I wouldn't want my kid eating that everyday, but there's something about sending in food? If you want to eat something else, you have to leave, which means someone has to pick up the child and take him back. I kept asking questions and she got irritated with me. She went to the same elementary school as a child, and they've never had a lunch room. I have never been to a school without a lunch room! 

 

:( I thought free lunch was a federal program. This is really shocking.

[luuknam]

I think this is immoral. Children are going hungry, and other children are being taught not to care. How are parents OK with this? How are taxpayers OK with this?

 

Most elementary and middle schools here don't offer lunch regularly.  Kids that stay at school pack their own.  Especially in the city, many don't have lunch rooms, they were built when it was normal for kids to walk home for lunch.

 

Same in NL. At my first elementary school, kids that stayed over ate lunch in the school library, at my second one in one of the kindergarten classrooms. Not many kids stayed at school for lunch, most walked or bicycled home (lunch was an hour, and kids who stayed at school for lunch would spend most of the hour playing outside on the playground). And I've never heard people talking about hungry kids at school there... I guess the state welfare program was good enough that parents could buy their kids food. Oh, and almost everyone just had bread with peanut butter/jam/cheese/etc for lunch, no matter how rich - vegetables are for dinner (in fact, if you ask a Dutch person what's for dinner, they'll mention the vegetable first - yes, there are potatoes and some sort of meat for dinner as well, but they're of secondary importance). It was annoying when teachers would look all worried (one even offered to help) when I sent my oldest to school in the US with just a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Same in NL. At my first elementary school, kids that stayed over ate lunch in the school library, at my second one in one of the kindergarten classrooms. Not many kids stayed at school for lunch, most walked or bicycled home (lunch was an hour, and kids who stayed at school for lunch would spend most of the hour playing outside on the playground). And I've never heard people talking about hungry kids at school there... I guess the state welfare program was good enough that parents could buy their kids food. Oh, and almost everyone just had bread with peanut butter/jam/cheese/etc for lunch, no matter how rich - vegetables are for dinner (in fact, if you ask a Dutch person what's for dinner, they'll mention the vegetable first - yes, there are potatoes and some sort of meat for dinner as well, but they're of secondary importance). It was annoying when teachers would look all worried (one even offered to help) when I sent my oldest to school in the US with just a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.

 

Ah. Thank you. I'm chatting on the side with some friends about this; we're thinking that we see how it worked in the past, when schools were in the children's home communities and there was plenty of food at home. We are just wondering how it's supposed to work in the USA today, when free lunch programs are state mandated and federally funded due to increased poverty, and many children are bused a great distance from home in the first place...

 

here in the midwest (USA) students in farming communities always took their lunch, to save money, but there was a kitchen with hot lunch available if families could afford it and wanted the convenience. That was *then.* Now, in my township, the majority of children qualify for free lunch, and the free lunches from school are inadequate to feed them so we also have weekend backpack programs and "summer servings" free meals during breaks. Times change.

 

If children are going hungry in NJ schools while other children eat, then I hope whoever's in charge in NJ will realize that policies need updated. Assumptions (of food at home, or available money) do not feed children, as is evident. :(

[luuknam]

Ah. Thank you. I'm chatting on the side with some friends about this; we're thinking that we see how it worked in the past, when schools were in the children's home communities and there was plenty of food at home. We are just wondering how it's supposed to work in the USA today, when free lunch programs are state mandated and federally funded due to increased poverty, and many children are bused a great distance from home in the first place...

 

FWIW, we've been on food stamps (in Texas), and it was over $600/month for a family of 4, one of which was a baby and got free formula through WIC (yes, we'd usually have to buy half a can at the end of the month from the food stamp money, but still), and the other one got free breakfast and lunch at school (and some more food from WIC). We didn't have a clue what to do with all the food money (considered selling some to buy diapers, but that's illegal). So, all I can say is that the US system is messed up (for example, if we'd had two ravenous teenagers with only free lunch (or no free lunch in your example) and no free breakfast and no WIC we'd have gotten the same amount of food stamps). Not sure what busing has got to do with this though - you can send brown bread with peanut butter and it will stay good till lunch no matter how far the kid is bused.

[Haiku]

Taxpayers aren't involved because the lunch is run by PTO. The kids without money are generally ESL students. My friend stopped volunteering for lunch duty over this because she tried to buy extra on her own and was stopped by the principal. The parents haven't given consent, and there's a no sharing food rule. The parents don't sign the form for consent because they can't afford to send in money and possibly can't read the form. I really, really don't get it either, and it bothered me every time she would chat about the process. Also, it's bagels. Or pizza. No vegetables. No fruit. I wouldn't want my kid eating that everyday, but there's something about sending in food? If you want to eat something else, you have to leave, which means someone has to pick up the child and take him back. I kept asking questions and she got irritated with me. She went to the same elementary school as a child, and they've never had a lunch room. I have never been to a school without a lunch room! 

 

This is sick an horrifying.

[Ravin]

The charter my DD went to in 6th didn't have a kitchen/lunch. The options were pack a sack lunch or buy from the food truck that showed up in the parking lot every day at the right time. Campus was not open for the middle school kids; not sure about the high schoolers.

 

Once when the food truck broke down a passel of kids were stuck without lunch.

 

The middle school director did keep a food pantry from which kids could buy some basic things, such as microwave cup ramen, for cheap. She would usually let kids access this on a tab and let the parents know after the fact if they forgot their lunch (and hadn't run their tab up past a certain point).

 

We knew lunch wasn't included when we signed her up; we could manage it okay, even though if she'd gone somewhere with a lunch program she'd have qualified for free lunch.

 

Other charters in the area do have lunch and/or breakfast; some offer busing in certain areas as well; one school near me which specializes in taking care of the needs of homeless kids will bus them from anywhere their family is staying within the county (and it's a big county!).

[Joyofsixreboot]

Kindergarten ready? Huh, schools take everyone right? Ok, maybe not the charter. Are they one of those strange " do calculus by first grade" schools. Had the kids ever seen this kind of test? Were they freaked out? Sometimes mine miss things if the question is presented differently.ni might take it as info but not Holy Writ. Are your kids polite? Well spoken? Kind? If so I'd say that is far from failure.

[sheryl]

Well there is no such thing as "not kindergarten ready" IMO.  Sounds like they are biased.

That is excellent - so true!

[Guest]

How can a public school not offer lunch?

Where I live, the public schools don't offer lunch. Only open-air patios for eating your packed lunches. Nor is there any bus service, at all.

[Guest]

This is sick an horrifying.

I'm gobsmacked as well. I had no idea this existed in any US public school.

[eternalsummer]

Our charter (the Waldorf methods one) doesn't provide lunch either.  It's actually one of the things that drew us to it, as our kids can never eat the school lunch due to dietary restrictions and were made fun of in a previous school.  In this one it is no big deal.  The kids do kind of share food, though.

 

The Waldorf charter does cream-skim, kind of.  They don't care about getting high test scores (in fact they're a little bit anti-intellectual in a weird way) but they do want everyone to be very peaceful and quiet and loving all the time, so young male energy is kind of frowned upon.  They let the kids bully each other (but only verbally) and they have no school counselor.  In every class there is at least one kid, maybe more, who has to have his mother stay with him all day.  They also don't differentiate for learning ability, so while they have some remedial teachers for LD kids (because keeping their charter relies on having most kids able to read), they don't have anything approximating a GT teacher; instead, they insist on holding bright kids back to "keep them asleep" (their words) until the karmically appointed time for them to learn the next skill.

 

It is weird.

Edited July 29, 2016 by ananemone

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I don't think anyone has a problem with a brown bag school concept. The shock is about hungry children sitting there watching others eat while there is nothing for them. Whether taxes need to be raised or whether churches or community groups need to be mobilized -- I mean, gee whiz, maybe the lions club could start a soup kitchen? Maybe school guidance could work harder with parents? I don't know. I just didn't think we (the USA) believed in this, in a public school.

[zoobie]

:( I thought free lunch was a federal program. This is really shocking.

The federal lunch program isn't a mandatory program; the funding is separate from other education funds. Schools don't have to offer lunch at all, and they can refuse federal money if they don't want to comply with federal guidelines.

[catz]

I can see both sides of it.  We have MANY charters here and people wouldn't have nearly as much school choice if school facilities were required to have cafeterias.   I can also totally see how both transportation and lunch could be deal breakers for families that might be interested in charters.  There is a lot of oversight on charters here because they're so prevalent.  There can't be GT charters with tests or performing art charters that require auditions or anything.  That said, I do see that people get in and in some cases feel pushed out and their kids get the short end of the stick. 

 

Our local classical charter got a bunch of bad press this year for treating a young transgender child poorly and that family felt they had to leave the school.  So it does happen.  But I do think there can be very public push back and consequences.   The performing arts charter boy was considering for high school really has kids at ALL levels attending there and does feel very welcoming to kids from all walks of life.  That said they have an open campus in a busy downtown area and school schedules shift.  Kids have to be super mature and responsible to succeed there.  I can see there is a fine line between using a certain model of education and being able to be a good fit for every kid that might come through the door?  It's a hard problem. 

 

 

[Dmmetler]

The federal lunch program isn't a mandatory program; the funding is separate from other education funds. Schools don't have to offer lunch at all, and they can refuse federal money if they don't want to comply with federal guidelines.

And private schools can choose to participate. DD's former private school did. I assume they had at least a few kids who were eligible.

[Bluegoat]

I can see both sides of it.  We have MANY charters here and people wouldn't have nearly as much school choice if school facilities were required to have cafeterias.   I can also totally see how both transportation and lunch could be deal breakers for families that might be interested in charters.  There is a lot of oversight on charters here because they're so prevalent.  There can't be GT charters with tests or performing art charters that require auditions or anything.  That said, I do see that people get in and in some cases feel pushed out and their kids get the short end of the stick. 

 

Our local classical charter got a bunch of bad press this year for treating a young transgender child poorly and that family felt they had to leave the school.  So it does happen.  But I do think there can be very public push back and consequences.   The performing arts charter boy was considering for high school really has kids at ALL levels attending there and does feel very welcoming to kids from all walks of life.  That said they have an open campus in a busy downtown area and school schedules shift.  Kids have to be super mature and responsible to succeed there.  I can see there is a fine line between using a certain model of education and being able to be a good fit for every kid that might come through the door?  It's a hard problem. 

 

Yes, I think that one of the pros of charters, in theory, is really flexibility and scope to try different things.  So, a charter that is for kids who are academically advanced or interested in a particular subject, for kids interested in trades skills, or even maybe even one that is specifically targeted at kids who live within walking distance.

[eternalsummer]

It doesn't necessarily bother me that the Waldorf charter discourages male energy or rowdiness, etc. - it doesn't really even bother me that they don't offer differentiation for bright kids (the bullying thing drives me a little nuts, but oh well).

 

What bothers me is that because they are a public charter, when I told them before enrolling that DS was probably undiagnosed ADHD (and at the very least was kind of obnoxious and high-energy) and was also pretty bright and reading/doing math a couple grade levels ahead, they said, oh, that is fine, no worries, we can accommodate.

 

But then during the actual school year they were quite clear that not only could they not accommodate, they didn't even philosophically believe in accommodation!  Why didn't they just tell me before enrollment that they would discourage reading, do all math as a whole class, allow verbal but not physical bullying, etc.?  

 

Luckily DD11's teacher (at the same school) is not a true believer, so she allows DD to differentiate and is somewhat more fair about boys and girls.  It is still a strange environment, though, and I have to remind DD that she would be as miserable in a military prep school as some of the boys are in her Waldorf school, and this doesn't make her an inherently better person (or the boys inherently worse people).  

[SKL]

I don't think anyone has a problem with a brown bag school concept. The shock is about hungry children sitting there watching others eat while there is nothing for them. Whether taxes need to be raised or whether churches or community groups need to be mobilized -- I mean, gee whiz, maybe the lions club could start a soup kitchen? Maybe school guidance could work harder with parents? I don't know. I just didn't think we (the USA) believed in this, in a public school.

 

The idea of giving kids a free sandwich if they didn't bring their own lunch / lunch money is relatively new and didn't exist when/where I was a kid.  The parents / kids were responsible to make sure lunch was provided.  It was just part of going to school.  You wouldn't send a kid without a shirt or shoes, you don't send a kid without a lunch / lunch money.  When I was in primary school, that meant we slapped together pbj or bologna sandwiches and packed them in a brown bag and remembered to bring them along with our bookbags to school.  If we forgot, there were ways to deal with that - in our case we could walk back home and get the lunch (with consequences so it didn't happen again).  I think the free emergency lunch for kids who forgot was instituted when busing made it impossible for many kids to walk back home for the things they forgot.

 

In the pp that described the no-lunch charter, leaving school to get lunch was an option.  Thus it is on the kids and parents to decide how to make it work; and if you can't, you don't attend that charter school.

 

I don't agree that the school is the institution that has ultimate responsibility to make sure kids' basic needs are met.  Should they have free clothes, and also a sleeping room for kids who didn't get enough sleep last night?  That said, if you're going to make it impossible for kids to get lunch any other way, then you need to make it available at school.

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

Yes, I think that one of the pros of charters, in theory, is really flexibility and scope to try different things.  So, a charter that is for kids who are academically advanced or interested in a particular subject, for kids interested in trades skills, or even maybe even one that is specifically targeted at kids who live within walking distance.

 

When I was a kid and forced busing (kids forced to be bused to the other side of our big city) began, many small schools sprung up (on both sides of the tracks) just for the purpose of allowing kids to walk to their neighborhood school, instead of sitting for hours on a bus every day and attending a school to which their parents had no access.

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL

[LucyStoner]

The idea of giving kids a free sandwich if they didn't bring their own lunch / lunch money is relatively new and didn't exist when I was a kid. The parents / kids were responsible to make sure lunch was provided. It was just part of going to school. You wouldn't send a kid without a shirt or shoes, you don't send a kid without a lunch / lunch money. When I was in primary school, that meant we slapped together pbj or bologna sandwiches and packed them in a brown bag and remembered to bring them along with our bookbags to school. If we forgot, there were ways to deal with that - in our case we could walk back home and get the lunch (with consequences so it didn't happen again). I think the free emergency lunch for kids who forgot was instituted when busing made it impossible for many kids to walk back home for the things they forgot.

 

In the pp that described the no-lunch charter, leaving school to get lunch was an option. Thus it is on the kids and parents to decide how to make it work; and if you can't, you don't attend that charter school.

 

I don't agree that the school is the institution that has ultimate responsibility to make sure kids' basic needs are met. Should they have free clothes, and also a sleeping room for kids who didn't get enough sleep last night? That said, if you're going to make it impossible for kids to get lunch any other way, then you need to make it available at school.

My father is into his 70s. My mother, if she were alive, would be 62. Both talked about how their schools fed people without lunches or money. My mom went to school all around the country and said all of her schools had something. In 1968 roughly 3/4 of US students attended a school with a federal lunch program. Throughout the 1970s it became even more common. My mother would have been 14 in 1968, so by the time she was high school age, this was hardly a rarity. There are examples of local programs dating back to the earliest years of the 20th century. Didn't exist? Hardly. That it apparently didn't exist where you were doesn't make the concept a new one. It's actually not that much newer than universal compulsory public school. American poverty and hunger levels were very high in large cities with FT child labor being common when compulsory education started to become the norm and getting food at school either via a penny lunch program or a settlement house/other charity or paid for by the city in some way was actually one of the things that got families to agree to send their kids. Edited July 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

When I was a kid and forced busing (kids forced to be bused to the other side of our big city) began, many small schools sprung up just for the purpose of allowing kids to walk to their neighborhood school, instead of sitting for hours on a bus every day and attending a school to which their parents had no access.

And so white people didn't have to tolerate desegregation. Let's not sugar coat it. Avoiding desegregation was also a large part in the rise of homeschooling in some demographics.

[LucyStoner]

I'm glad you are feeling encouraged pink mint and that you have an appointment on the books to see your doctor. Best wishes to you and your whole family.

Edited July 30, 2016 by LucyStoner

[SKL]

My father is into his 70s. My mother, if she were alive, would be 62. Both talked about how their schools fed people without lunches or money. My mom went to school all around the country and said all of her schools has something. In 1968 roughly 3/4 of US students attended a school with a federal lunch program. Throughout the 1970s it became even more common. My mother would have been 14 in 1968, so by the time she was high school age, this was hardly a rarity. There are examples of local programs dating back to the earliest years of the 20th century. Didn't exist? Hardly. That it apparently didn't exist where you were doesn't make the concept a new one. It's actually not that much newer than universal compulsory public school. American poverty and hunger levels were very high in large cities with FT child labor being common when compulsory education started to become the norm and getting food at school either via a penny lunch program or a settlement house/other charity or paid for by the city in some way was actually one of the things that got families to agree to send their kids.

 

I shouldn't have said "didn't exist when I was a kid," I should have said "when/where I was a kid" and I edited my comment.

 

There was always something they would do for a young kid; if the kid could not go home & get food, they would extend credit for a hot lunch, but then there was a debt, and it was not expected to happen regularly.  It was not the school's responsibility to finance the kid's lunch.

 

Later there were reduced and free lunches, and they came up with better ways to deal with forgetful kids.

 

I am sure there have always been efforts to charitably feed kids who would otherwise starve.  But not generally as part of an established system at school.  In most places, it would not be something a parent would rightfully expect or demand when sending a child to school empty-handed.

 

So I do not consider it "immoral" to establish an optional school that everyone knows at the outset does not provide lunch.  The parents who find this unacceptable do not need to choose that school.  When I send my kids to a camp that says "bring a sack lunch," I assume my kids will not be fed if we forget the lunch, because I know there is no kitchen at the camp.  If I signed them up for a school without a kitchen, it would be the same thing.  I would feel badly if my young child went hungry, but it would be on me.

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

And so white people didn't have to tolerate desegregation. Let's not sugar coat it. Avoiding desegregation was also a large part in the rise of homeschooling in some demographics.

 

Maybe it was part of it, but my friend who attended such a school was a brown-skinned Hispanic girl.  Her parents did not want her bused to a very high-crime neighborhood far away from home.

 

Also, some of those little schools were in black neighborhoods.

 

There are many good things about a neighborhood school.  But, I knew someone would jump on the racism wagon.

Edited July 30, 2016 by SKL