What's Southwest Atlanta's Kipp Academy School Secret. (Clayton: credit, private schools)

[Atlwarrior]

As I was traveling to work this morning, I could not help but notice how well behave Kipp Academy Kids were behaving. Those teachers are producing kids that are very distinguish. Kipp kids are proof, that within the City of Atlanta with so much peer pressure, and confusing images, inner city kids can still thrive and flourish. The kids seem to understand protocol and respect those in public. The kids look like they had a sense of purpose, and healthy self esteem. It should all in there body language. What is Kipp secret ? To be located in West End Kipp Academy Kids are so noticeable different than APS kids.

[midgeorgiaman]

One thing to remember about inner city charters is that the mere requirement that a parent must apply will often keep the bottom 30% (my guess) out. Sorry POS parents who "raise" little thugs and gangsters are too sorry to care enough to actually take the time to fill out a piece of paper in advance. The second big thing IMO is that urban charters get to bypass the bureaucratic nightmare that is in place within the central offices of most urban districts. They can easily remove ineffective employees and insubordinate students. Better employees (not all, its just that slugs aren't allowed to stay and fester) and better students (ones that only come to school to sell drugs and eat their free lunch have POS parents who wont bother to apply) leads to better schools. I am not dismissing their other techniques but I think the people make the difference.

A large majority of inner city kids want to do well, but with the current push to educate ALL students, so much effort is spent on the lowest kids that often the good kids are ignored and not pushed to excel. Urban districts who are successful don't try to save ALL students, they save the ones that can be saved and cut the others loose. Sad, but while one bad apple might not ruin the bunch, a bunch of bad apples most certainly will!

[GeorgiaLakeSearch]

Originally Posted by midgeorgiaman

One thing to remember about inner city charters is that the mere requirement that a parent must apply will often keep the bottom 30% (my guess) out. Sorry POS parents who "raise" little thugs and gangsters are too sorry to care enough to actually take the time to fill out a piece of paper in advance. The second big thing IMO is that urban charters get to bypass the bureaucratic nightmare that is in place within the central offices of most urban districts. They can easily remove ineffective employees and insubordinate students. Better employees (not all, its just that slugs aren't allowed to stay and fester) and better students (ones that only come to school to sell drugs and eat their free lunch have POS parents who wont bother to apply) leads to better schools. I am not dismissing their other techniques but I think the people make the difference.

A large majority of inner city kids want to do well, but with the current push to educate ALL students, so much effort is spent on the lowest kids that often the good kids are ignored and not pushed to excel. Urban districts who are successful don't try to save ALL students, they save the ones that can be saved and cut the others loose. Sad, but while one bad apple might not ruin the bunch, a bunch of bad apples most certainly will!

This. So many people live in a dream world and think they can change people. There is a limit to what you can change. When my wife taught in APS a parent said, "homework is for ... uppity ... people."(leaving out the inflammatory parts)

Look at how Clayton County went the most for President Obama and charter schools in 2012. So who is actually against charter schools? It is a certain kind of Democrat(ones that generally have choices than the local subpar public school). I am not saying because I will be told I am race baiting.

[bravos]

Don't charter schools get to "pick" the kids they want, while public schools have to accept "every kid" that lives in that area?

[jeoff]

Originally Posted by bravos

Don't charter schools get to "pick" the kids they want, while public schools have to accept "every kid" that lives in that area?

As I understand it, there are what appear to be mild barriers that result in self-selection (like midgeorgiaman said)--with a maybe little bit of "selection after the fact" thrown in. Parents have to have the desire to apply for the school, and know the process to get in, and they may be required to provide their own transportation and volunteer at the school. Also, early application dates can keep out many transient families. That probably weeds out a lot of the "unmotivated" parents, as well as parents that may not have the means to provide transportation, or the time to volunteer. I am not sure that all (or any) have special education. I don't know if it is easier to kick out kids who misbehave, or maybe the modest hurdles for entry (besides the lottery to get in) keep a lot of the bad kids out. Btw, I think midgeorgiaman's guess of the bottom 30% are what makes a "bad" school bad, is not far off. I taught chemistry at a "bad" high school in Dekalb County for a year, I would guess about two-thirds of my kids could have been very successful at a "better" school (that is a school that had just a couple of trouble-makers per a class instead of 10).

[bravos]

Originally Posted by jeoff

...Btw, I think midgeorgiaman's guess of the bottom 30% are what makes a "bad" school bad, is not far off. I taught chemistry at a "bad" high school in Dekalb County for a year, I would guess about two-thirds of my kids could have been very successful at a "better" school (that is a school that had just a couple of trouble-makers per a class instead of 10).

Two-thirds would do better at another school? So as to the OP's question as to what's the "secret" of the charter schools... would you say that it's not necessarily the best teachers at charter schools, but that charter schools can provide an environment that helps facilitate learning?

Also a question in general... since the dropout age is about 16 or 17, where do these undisciplined kids that don't want to learn go to school?

[midgeorgiaman]

Originally Posted by bravos

Two-thirds would do better at another school? So as to the OP's question as to what's the "secret" of the charter schools... would you say that it's not necessarily the best teachers at charter schools, but that charter schools can provide an environment that helps facilitate learning?

Also a question in general... since the dropout age is about 16 or 17, where do these undisciplined kids that don't want to learn go to school?

I would say that charters dont have better teachers overall. There are some slugs, but most public school teachers, even in urban districts really do the best they can and many are very talented teachers. Charters if done right, however, can provide an environment more conducive to learning because they don't have to deal with idiotic central office requirements and prove in 18 different ways why an 18yo freshman with more felonies than credits is detrimental to the learning environment before they are removed from the classroom. In Bibb, we are recovering from a gypsy superintendent who decided to improve discipline in the schools by refusing to allow office referrals to be written by teachers. The number of suspensions did indeed drop, but the classrooms became environments worthy of Jerry Springer episodes...not the best for learning. I had students begging to get into gifted classes so they could get away from the thugs that we (the school) wouldn't suspend or expel so the kids could learn. It was terribly sad to have that happen and charters with just that very minimal requirement of filing an application passively exclude these "students."

[LovelySummer]

Hubbie teaches for APS and we talked about this. He is against charters bc he says the public schools need the money bc they have to educate ALL the kids (many special ed and challenged in other ways) while charters get to pick and choose and can kick the kids out easily. Also, no, most charter schools do not have accomodations for children with special needs. So, yes, they get to pick and choose who they want and don't want. They do not have to take anyone. Also, they can ask any kid to leave when they want to do so. In many ways, charters are basically like lightweight private schools...only free.

I always say the trouble makers need to be removed and the class should go on immediately. Stop putting resources and time into the few that won't cooperate and then other potential non-cooperative students may straighten up. If they don't, get rid of them too. They can come back when they are ready to behave. Hubbie sees things differently. I still think private corps out to run the schools bc the decision-making and leadership in schools makes you wonder if some of these "leaders" even went to college. Some of the decisions make absolutely no sense (if the goal is educating the kids).

Originally Posted by jeoff

As I understand it, there are what appea
r to be mild barriers that result in self-selection (like midgeorgiaman said)--with a maybe little bit of "selection after the fact" thrown in. Parents have to have the desire to apply for the school, and know the process to get in, and they may be required to provide their own transportation and volunteer at the school. Also, early application dates can keep out many transient families. That probably weeds out a lot of the "unmotivated" parents, as well as parents that may not have the means to provide transportation, or the time to volunteer. I am not sure that all (or any) have special education. I don't know if it is easier to kick out kids who misbehave, or maybe the modest hurdles for entry (besides the lottery to get in) keep a lot of the bad kids out. Btw, I think midgeorgiaman's guess of the bottom 30% are what makes a "bad" school bad, is not far off. I taught chemistry at a "bad" high school in Dekalb County for a year, I would guess about two-thirds of my kids could have been very successful at a "better" school (that is a school that had just a couple of trouble-makers per a class instead of 10).

[Seatlien]

Originally Posted by midgeorgiaman

One thing to remember about inner city charters is that the mere requirement that a parent must apply will often keep the bottom 30% (my guess) out. Sorry POS parents who "raise" little thugs and gangsters are too sorry to care enough to actually take the time to fill out a piece of paper in advance. The second big thing IMO is that urban charters get to bypass the bureaucratic nightmare that is in place within the central offices of most urban districts. They can easily remove ineffective employees and insubordinate students. Better employees (not all, its just that slugs aren't allowed to stay and fester) and better students (ones that only come to school to sell drugs and eat their free lunch have POS parents who wont bother to apply) leads to better schools. I am not dismissing their other techniques but I think the people make the difference.

A large majority of inner city kids want to do well, but with the current push to educate ALL students, so much effort is spent on the lowest kids that often the good kids are ignored and not pushed to excel. Urban districts who are successful don't try to save ALL students, they save the ones that can be saved and cut the others loose. Sad, but while one bad apple might not ruin the bunch, a bunch of bad apples most certainly will!

While I agree with most of your post, I think Drew Charter proves that some of the "30%" can be reached. It took a lot of money to pull it off, but money isn't a problem in APS and the COA - how they spend it is.

[LovelySummer]

Great post. This is exactly right.

Originally Posted by Seatlien

While I agree with most of your post, I think Drew Charter proves that some of the "30%" can be reached. It took a lot of money to pull it off, but money isn't a problem in APS and the COA - how they spend it is.