Alright cool so this'll get me warmed up for @Flappr...

The premise is: Why do I hate Corey DeAngelis?

1. He doesn't live on this planet. Allow me to explain: https://twitter.com/sir_micks_alot/status/1293685996463292416

1 (part b).

One of his biggest arguments for his beliefs is his steadfast insistence that school choice unequivocally improves educational quality. This is laughable on its face.

School choice is only as effective as the choices one has.

1 (part c)

In a place like NYC, yes, school choice's net benefits are vast. This is because there is a huge population, with lots of capable people to run said schools of choice.

Neither side likes to hear this: but school quality is partly a community issue.

1 (part d)

No school is better than the staff it is capable of hiring, the same as any other organization. If there's little quality of life incentive to stay someplace, good teachers aren't going to stay because they're in high demand.

1 (part e)

Cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, etc have huge talent pools they can draw from to build a quality private or charter school.

But how that translates to Flint, MI is anyone's guess.

1 (part f)

If I don't want to work in Flint, MI at a public school with a union protection racket and a pension, why the hell would I want to work at a charter school in Flint where I will likely have zero protection (charters usually use at will agreements) no pension + less $

1 (part g)

The reality is that school choice can only be effective if there's an effective choice to be made.

2 (part A)

His solutions ignore basic educational needs.

2 (part B)

One of my favorite examples of this is the utterly preposterous "microschool" proposal he likes to put forth. When he tweets about it, it goes something like this:

2 (part C)

"We spend $15,000 per child in the U.S. A teacher could have 10 students at a microschool and bring in $150,000 in revenue."

You can probably already see where I'm going with this.

He just ignores basic economics (and parent needs)

2 (part D)

First, out of that 150k, I'd have to get:

My license, a building to hold school in, curriculum, materials, maintenance costs, school lunch programs, etc. If your small business only brought in 150k pre expenses, you'd find a job.

2 (part e)

Second, what lunatic parent is going to send their kids to a microschool with limited social interaction and no extracurriculars?

If you're going to do that, you're probably already homeschooling and doing a better job of socializing the kid to boot.

2 (part f)

Sure, Corey. I'll do that. Maybe I could partner with likeminded educators. We could pool our money for a large building and put all the kids there. *eyeroll*

3 (part a)

Corey has a serious fetish for charter schools. Let me tell you about how charter schools actually work.

1. Charter schools are for profit. Your kid's education--and I cannot stress this enough because I have worked at several--is not their top priority.

3 (part b)

2. Charter schools don't have to play by the same rules as public schools. If anything, even public school districts that *want* to do the right thing are hamstrung compared to charters, which basically operate in the wild west.

Let me explain number 1 first.

3 (part c)

Charter schools get to operate as public schools. That's why they can currently get your tax dollars. All public school funding is tied to number of kids and number of days. Some states take your average attendance over a period. Some take the attendance at day 100.

3 (part d)

To keep this simple, we'll use the 100 days marker.

In state N, your charter school gets X dollars * Y number of students at the 100 day mark.

In public schools, this matters because you know what next year's budget looks like, but that's about it.

3 (part e)

This is because true public schools are required to take kids at any time, no matter what, in part thanks to the McKinney-Vento Act, which is supposed to protect homeless kids.

In fact, only weapons and drug dealing can keep a kid out, and even then it's situational

3 (part f)

Charter schools, however, are allowed to close their enrollment after a certain date. So if a kid might hurt their academic data, they find a reason to expel said kid after day 100, pocket YOUR money, and force said kid to go to public school anyway.

3 (part g)

This does a couple things.

1. It puts public school at a funding disadvantage, because they're literally not allowed to turn a kid away unless said kid was expelled. Charters pressure parents to withdraw their student before expulsion, thus forcing the kid 2 p.s.

3 (part h)

2. It puts the public school at a testing disadvantage.

"Charter schools perform better"

No shit. If I could cherry pick my students I'd have pretty good data too.

Now, on to that second part of 3

3 (part i)

Your public school has to offer lots of different types of classes. Art, music, and gym are pretty common at all levels, and then you obviously have all kinds of electives by the time they reach high school.

3 (part j)

There's some ways you can work on core things like reading and math in these, but let's be honest: Electives/Specials are not run by teachers who know how to teach reading and math. They're run by very smart people with very DIFFERENT skills.

3 (part k)

The point is that your publics *have* to offer these.

But, charter schools get to cry poor and claim they don't have the facilities or staff. So they get to do made up "electives" which are basically just glorified ELA/Math classes.

3 (part L)

Again, if I could spend all day with kids working on only reading, math, and science, I'd put up some wild numbers.

There's more to it, but I've reached the thread limit.

He's dishonest and delusional. Ask more if you want I guess.