Quote Originally Posted by davewindsor View Post
I agree with these two statements.

I remember back in public high school I switched from one school to another. The one I switched to didn't offer the same history courses. My guidance councilor told me that I could take those courses as distance ed courses while still going to public high school. I did that. And wow, I mean I learned so much more through those distance ed history courses than I would ever have going to classes for them. It was supervised by part-time retired school teachers. I listened to a dozen cassette tapes and read several focused course books and I still got A's. When I looked at the distance ed course book, they had everything. Math, physics, French, English, History, everything.

The point is, you don't need to go to a physical location daily to get a good high school education. Why can't they learn at home through correspondence courses if this academy shut down? It's not going to cost anywhere near $12Gs or $6Gs for that matter. There's a point where the student has to take some responsibility for getting through high school.
Yes, but...

... we also are wise to recognize that certain classes of students may be helped by different techniques. What didn't get discussed on this thread was the challenge to the charter's program because it was discriminatory.

I feel that sometimes an 'all boys', or 'all girls', or even 'all black' or 'all hispanic' school could be appropriate. Not every move to acknowledge and respond to groups of students should be squashed by the obsessive advocates of fairness. Although in this case I wonder if the challenge wasn't more an 'attack' on charters than striving for equality.