The debate continues between Julie Cavanagh and Ben Boychik. Follow this to see exactly the kind of manipulative game parent trigger plays in the hands of the ed deformers.
NO COMMENTS ALLOWED AT PUBLIC SECTOR WEB SITE.
JUST CLICK ON THE COMMENT LINK BELOW THIS POST
Since there is no room for comments we are using Ed Notes as the vehicle for public comment every day.
Here is the link to the debate so far:
http://www.publicsectorinc.com/online_debates/2011/08/the-parent-trigger-a-positive-step-or-a-distraction-for-improving-our-public-schools.html
Tomorrow at 12 noon you can see the responses to each other and so on through Thursday.
Check Ed Notes' previous coverage:
1 comment:
Ben Boychuk has run out of concrete things to say and has moved on to vague remarks in favor of "choice."
On the subject of "choice," in the version presented by so-called education reformers: The idea is supposed to be that a parent can choose from different schools according to the child's needs.
But that conflicts with the reality of the Parent Trigger, which requires 51% of the parents to vote on one of four specified plans for the school (at least, should this ever occur, in cases where the option isn't pre-selected for the parents by charter operators and their representatives, as occurred in the one extant Parent Trigger so far).
That inherently means one size fits all for those 51%, plus the other up-to-49% who didn't sign the petition. One of those models, of course, is closing the school. Well, that IS a choice, but it's one that cuts off an option to 100% of the families (the option being continuing to attend the school), rather than expanding their options.
So how exactly is that creating choice and meeting the individual needs of kids?
Their arguments just aren't making sense at all.
Post a Comment