This was easily (and repeatedly) predicted from the outset. It was clearly visible to anyone who looked at the issue with open eyes.

What's the scam?

The "scam" is that this whole policy was pitched as a vibrant option to run alongside traditional public schools, and people bought into it for that reason. Even people who didn't want to puruse that choice were assured that it wouldn't negatively affect public schools.

In fact, it was obvious from the outset that the undermining and (ultimately) the destruction of public schools was the real goal, and well-meaning parents and communities were duped into going along with it by the claims of robust academic options.

Fewer students, fewer resources needed, fewer teachers, and ultimately fewer buildings. But the debate ranged, freely, randomly, across "buildings" and "systems" and "budgets" and "academics" and who knows what all in addition.

Yes. It does two things. It concentrates those whose parents cannot or won't navigate the system to get their kids elsewhere. It, in principle, helps those kids whose parents get them put into better schools (that happens) or warehouse schools where they learn nothing but graduate.

Because the "data" "prove" that it's not the learning, but the high school diploma that matters. (Sorry for the snarky sarcasm. It's in-service week in most districts in Texas.)

The thing is, this is an outlier. Most schools aren't going to be that badly affected.

The reason most people think that the effect that happens, even if extreme, is good is that the assumption is that if the teachers and administrators really tried all the kids could be in the top 5% by the end of the year.

Instead of "Woebegone" it's more like, "Whoa! Be gone!"

The whole scam is to underfund public schools until they fail, forcing those with the means to change to private/charter schools, to siphon off the $ into private hands. Those without the means are left to rot.

Be sure to check out the article posted by DonViejo: The willful race based destruction of a generation of kids
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027084781

Outrageous.

Highly recommend!

And it really doesn't feel good to have these opinions vindicated. It was intended on the part of the right-wing authors of this policy. See this white paper I've been posting for years with little response.

Unintended on the part of frustrated parents who saw their public schools being neglected and their kids left behind and hoped that these promised reforms would live up to their billing.

The question is, can we turn this back around? Chile was subjected to an almost identical program of corporate reform a generation ago and student movements are agitating to bring back real public education. Can we do the same?

The school was known for fights, drugs, gangs and "students who can't learn" (excuse me - "can't learn" WTF?) ..... this was when all the middle class families were there. ..... before they all fled with school choice vouchers.

The troubles in this school were there. The flight of middle class students only magnified the issues that were being ignored to the point families pulled their kids out.

The kids left behind were already being left behind.... plus a bunch of other kids that thankfully had a chance thanks to school choice. It is shameful to give the kids who can't get out a shitty school. THAT has to be addressed.

with options among public schools -- as long as the schools are open to anyone in the district (using a lottery if there are too many applicants), and bussing is provided.

Being a "powerhouse Class AAAA school" didn't make North Charleston high a good school overall -- not for the average kid who's not one of those powerhouse players.

According to the article, the district stopped bussing kids to the magnets and charters, and that deprived many kids of a real choice.

Now with enrollment down so low, I think they need to take drastic measures. Either turn the school into a magnet that will draw students there, or close the school and bus its remaining students to the schools their friends have been flocking to. And bussing needs to be provided to all the district's schools.

I'm not against school choice. I'm against the scam.

The effort to rank schools and embed the propaganda about "bad" schools and "bad" teachers, and the idea that charters are somehow better, and a way to leave "bad" schools, means that you never have to pony up the $$, the staff, the resources, to make sure that all schools are good schools. You get to siphon off some of the money invested in public education for private profit, and create situations that perpetuate the "public schools bad" mantra.

About 3 years back, we sat in a staff meeting to learn about new policies that furthered students transferring from one school to another. This has always happened, but new state legislation would remove limits, so...we were encouraged to create a video advertising our school so we wouldn't lose enrollment, and some of our operating budget was spent to create this video.

Our staff was appalled at the idea of marketing public schools instead of just supporting every school to create what their students needed. That's the world we work in, though.

We haven't lost enrollment. The net result has been this: our good reputation has created quite a bit of stress, because it brings in students with more serious troubles. Not that we don't want to be here for them, but...the percentage of special needs children in my classroom, and in our school, far exceeds the average in our district and region as a whole, and nobody is lowering class size or sending me extra resources or support to help all those who need more time, attention, and service than average. It's just stretching me thinner and thinner each year.

Other schools end up cutting staff and programs because of dropping enrollments.

And poverty is always going to be left behind; those who move out will be those who can arrange transport out of their zone.