[quote=AN]CAR,so in essence, you’re saying that because we have a bunch of low performing students, those who care or want to perform will have to deal with it. Instead of letting those who care to get the highest opportunity possible. Sounds awefilly like the fail logic of no child left behind to me. Which is neglecting those who actually careand spend way too much on those who don’t.[/quote]
I’m not CAR but I just want to respond to this.
AN, those (parents) “who care” or (students) “who want to perform” ARE able to get the highest opportunity possible, in EVERY school! Because there might be Magnet, Choice or VEEP students attending a school outside of their attendance area, this in no way takes anything from local students who “want to perform.” I don’t think ANY teacher would consciously “neglect” any student in their classrooms. If students need extra help with a topic, all they have to do is ASK for it!
I think what CAR is referring to here is that SOME students (percentage varying and unknown in each school) don’t get a good breakfast or have their own bed at home (have to share, sleep on sofa or futon or sleep in a roomful of other people). This makes it hard for them to concentrate, especially in their morning classes, that is, if the free breakfast program is not available at their school and they have to wait until lunchtime to have their “free or subsidized” lunch. This “phenomenon” is really just a function of poverty, nothing more. I believe 95% of parents from ALL walks of life CARE about their children’s education. How else can you explain so many “low-income” parents hopping on the “No Child Left Behind” bandwagon and successfully “choicing” out of their neighborhood schools?
School choice is the law. And it takes NOTHING away from the students who already reside in the attendance areas of their choice. They have FIRST PRIORITY on attending that school!
