IMHO, living in a pluralistic society requires that we accept the right of others to do things that we do not wish to do ourselves, provided they don’t harm us in the process. Someone else over-indulging in snacks does not harm me — it’s only when I choose to follow their lead that I may be harmed, and in that case I’ve chosen to take the risk.]]>
It can be done. Whether it should be done is up to the school’s leadership, which has to balance a lot of different priorities.
I just don’t want the District held up as the reason why more progress towards the goal hasn’t been achieved.]]>
No, it’s not about money (at least on the District side; I can’t speak for CLC). And please remember I’m not arguing that CLC should accept more socioeconomically disadvantaged kids. Chris apparently believes that it should…but also believes the District is making it difficult to do what he wants to do. Which is wrong — the District is not the one who made in district students a priority. The state did that. So he should blame the Legislature :).
The rest of my posting isn’t trying to urge CLC to do more outreach. All I’m saying is that if Chris and the rest of CLC’s leadership want to bring in more socioeconomically disadvantaged kids there are things they can do.]]>
I think the API data, to the extent it’s accurate, is pretty clear: proportionally fewer socioeconomically disdvantaged kids attend CLC than the rest of the District. It’ll be interesting to see if the actual headcount you get from the District confirm that.]]>
LOL! Talk about an oddball redirect. Nowhere in the posting did I even talk about District or CLC finances.
If I had to blame any one thing for the California education funding crisis, I’d probably pick a couple of decades of laissez-faire economic theory run amok :).]]>