>>124486020>nope. it is based on fucking teacher team and the principal.
Which is based on parental wealth. There are a handful of schools that buck the trend (I went to one), but they do so for highly specific reasons that aren't transferable (in my case, a magnet program that drew from across the county + proximity to a major research lab). Otherwise, you're basically looking at having a funding system capable of drawing and/or training highly-competent instructors.>>124486145
Charterfags can fuck off.>>124486383
This still comes down to an issue of parental wealth (and by extension parental community influence). Look at Chicago. It's public schools had issues for years, so parents would move or pull their kids out. It got to the point where class sizes were finally in line with what private schools were able to take advantage of. What happened? Did the manageable class sizes and continued funding allow for a transformation in student achievement? Nope, because the city cut funding and started closing schools due to "low attendance", forcing kids back into overcrowded schools farther from home. Sharkloli is right, it was all a scam designed to produce low performance and eventually school closures. Why? Because without schools, properties in these neighborhoods became less valuable and therefore easier to redevelop.
If the parents had had wealth, they could have said, "Fuck you keep the schools open; in fact, renovate them and retrain our teachers let's fucking go." They could have pushed back even harder than they did with lawsuits, campaigns, etc. They could have had Rahm Emmanuel assassinated (this would have made a lot of people happy). But because they were poor, even when an advantageous situation (small class sizes) was dumped on their doorstep, they couldn't avoid being steamrolled by larger interests. It's always about the money. Always.