General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy is school choice not a Democratic issue?
I live in Philadelphia, PA. The public schools here are horrible. Not to disparage the teachers who do the heavy lifting every day during the school year. But, if I had kids, I would move heaven and earth to get them into a charter school, or move to the outer counties w/ better schools.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
madokie
(51,076 posts)this is bullshit republiCON talk you got going there 
it doesn't belong here on DU, sorry
Doctor Who
(147 posts)There is a "lottery" every year here on who gets a chance to send their kids to a better school. If that's a republican talking point, I think you're missing the bigger picture of how do we fix the problem. No offense meant madokie.
madokie
(51,076 posts)This is bullshit and nothing less
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)students get a good and equal education. That a sifting out of a few advantaged students whose parents can drive them across town can benefit, while most are left behind in bad schools, is natural and appropriate for a stable society, and inevitable, is a quintessentially conservative belief.
Read about "belief in a natural order." The Jeffersonian idea that all men are created equal is by no means endorsed by all Americans.
madokie
(51,076 posts)take funds from the public school system
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)a few and not all, regardless of how funded, is unacceptable.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)That the schools are crap?
Or...
Are you just irritated that someone brought it up?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)district itself....they are a hybrid, not truly independent.
That's why they are so popular there.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You also have the option of moving heaven and earth to improve the existing schools in your area (though I realize that may not parallel your narrative too well).
Doctor Who
(147 posts)
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)And they're notorious for breaking teacher unions.
The money could be better spent on improving existing schools rather than starting new ones.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Charter schools are run by private company's. Right to hire, right to fire is the way they deal with teachers. But, are we more concerned about the teachers or the kids.. Let me put on my flame proof suit, because I think I touched a nerve here.
thucythucy
(9,037 posts)in terms of teaching kids with disabilities?
in terms of teaching kids wigth behavioral or other problems?
My sense is they get to pick and choose which students they'll accept, which means that kids with disabilities or other issues get "selected out."
If they want my tax dollars, they have to accept ALL students, not just cherry pick those who will succeed with less effort on the part of teachers and staff.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)And if there are too many then it must be a blind lottery, no cherry picking and no discrimination.
I think the only exceptions are siblings of current students can get priority to keep kids in the same school and children of staff.
dsc
(53,306 posts)they get asked to leave, but the money stays.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)They can't just ask them to leave for being disabled or a lousy student.
And it has been a while since I looked at funding but I think funding is based on attendance figures done either monthly or by semester- so if enrollment drops then the money drops.
That said at most of the schools if a kid leaves they usually have a waiting list and call the next one in line, so enrollment will stay the same and so the moment flow would stay flat too.
dsc
(53,306 posts)nearly every state has a count at the beginning of the year (first 10 days) and that is what your funding is based on. Also they do not have the same rules for expulsion.
thucythucy
(9,037 posts)about our local charters, which is why disability rights groups in general oppose them. They're seen as a way to circumvent the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and as leading to the creation of a two tiered system--kids with disabilities stay in public schools (which receive less and less funding and support) while kids without disabilities go to charters.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Just like private schools that get public money in the form of vouchers: they do pick and choose the students they want
I saw a report about a charter system in Ohio or Pennsylvania I can't remember which but the schools kicked out students with poor test scores because they lowered to schools overall test scores. Public schools don't have that option. Thank have to teach all students.
hack89
(39,181 posts)so it can be done.
mercuryblues
(16,140 posts)are a con on the tax payers, to benefit the well off.
They take money away from public schools. they then agree to accept all students. Only they find ways to expel the under performers. Thereby ensuring their test scores are higher than the public schools. Of course, this makes the school appear better.
Many schools have up and closed, with no warning. IOW they suck up as much as they can in funding. When they get audited, they just up and close. Many Charters are the Bain Capitol of education. The upper management walks away well paid and everyone else gets the shaft.
https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2015/09/30/thousands-of-charter-schools-close-rip-off-taxpayers-steal-students-future/
radical noodle
(10,462 posts)in many cases, Charter schools don't necessarily do as good a job of educating kids but some states exempt charters from jumping through the same hoops the regular public schools are. The whole premise of this is to eventually get rid of public schools totally by defunding them to the point they cannot function, then pointing at them and saying they aren't doing a good job. Then they can hand them over to private corps.
School systems do things in different ways, but some charters are allowed to use people who don't even have a teaching license. Do the charters take in the kids with special needs? So many here have already said it... we need good schools for ALL.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)I want to see teachers treated like the professionals they are and charter schools don't have a history of doing that
Without good teachers you're going to have poorly educated kids and it's next to impossible to keep good teachers if they don't have a good work environment
redstatebluegirl
(12,754 posts)The reason charter schools show such amazing results is they only accept the top students. Teaching begins with the c/d student. It is easy to teach the student who has strong family support, is motivated and consistently performs. Teaching is reaching the kids who do not fall into those categories.
The people who love these schools have used performance as a reason to expand them. This is a full frontal attack on public education, calling it anything less is just wrong!
Do you really want leaders in politics and business who have NO idea what public education is? That is where we are headed, most business leaders already fall into that category, hence the attack on public education.
If you want better schools, help get them the funding needed to make them better. Volunteer your time to tutor or mentor kids who struggle in your schools. Encourage and uplift the teachers who barely make a living wage and spend most of their waking hours, teaching, preparing or worrying about their "kids". Help teach parenting classes that show parents how to produce students who are prepared for school, both intellectually and from a disciplinary aspect.
The schools are just a mirror of what is wrong with our country right now, running to hide in a private safe room is not making it any better.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)would not be welcome in my home, thats for sure
SticksnStones
(2,108 posts)Gabi Hayes
(28,795 posts)According to multiple studies of the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Cleveland school voucher programs, the targeted population does not perform better in reading and math than students in public schools. The U.S. Department of Education studies of the D.C. program show that the students using vouchers to attend private schools do not believe that their voucher school is better or safer than the public school they left.
The study also showed that over a period of four years, there was no statistically significant difference between students who were offered a voucher and those who were not in their aspirations for future schooling, engagement in extracurricular activities, frequency of doing homework, attendance at school, reading for enjoyment or tardiness rates. In fact, students who participated in the program may actually have been more likely to be absent from school. Likewise, there was no significant difference in the student-teacher ratios in their classrooms or the availability of before-and after-school programs in their schools.
Vouchers do not improve opportunities for children from low-income families:
Vouchers do little to help the poor. The payments often do not cover the entire cost of tuition or other mandatory fees for private schools. Thus, only families with the money to cover the cost of the rest of the tuition, uniforms, transportation, books and other supplies can use the vouchers. In Cleveland, the majority of families who were granted a voucher but did not use it cited the additional costs as the reason they could not use the voucher. Vouchers actually hurt low-income families by undermining the public schools they rely on.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Of any child's education. There is zero proof that charter schools are better than public schools. Just le public schools it's a mixed bag. Some do begter, others do worse.
As a whole, children in charter schools do not perform any better on national tests.
On the flip side, charter schools are private entities. They don't own the school property, nor does the state, it's leased through private corporations who instead of paying teachers they have decided to make money through their lease options.
If you really want your child to have a good education, push for smaller classroom sizes and better funding of arts.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)Today the charter school/voucher system is just another way to divert tax dollars to the pockets of the wealthy.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I live in Texas and I am not thrilled about the school system and choice of text books, and thank goodness I can afford it.
But that doesn't mean I stop fighting for other people's children. If these schools drastically change then I will send them to public school. I'm paying nearly 24k a year for two kids, and that doesn't include school uniforms and items for projects and such.
The reason I do it? 8 to 12 kids to a classroom and the arts. They're getting an amazing education and I really wish every child had the same resources to education that mine are receiving.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Are also private funds. The school also does auctions, carnivals and many fundraising drives to help out, but we do end up paying about 75% out of pocket.
All said and done, it probably costs about 20k per student. That's why I hate when cities and school district residents complain, or boast, about how much it costs per student. Public schools are drastically under funded, so when a resident complains that it costs 12k per student, I tell them how much I spend and what I get for my investment. My children have never failed a subject, and continually score high on standardized tests. They also get the help they need on subjects they struggle with.
The real benefit to smaller class sizes is access to the teachers.No teacher can be expected to keep 30 parents continually updated on their child's day to day struggles and process. The teachers at this school contact us via email at least twice a week, sometimes more if there are issues, and I have easy access to them when I need it.
I want every kid and parent to have the same resources we enjoy. It really does show in their life and quality of work.
63splitwindow
(2,657 posts)And I am pretty sure that most would agree with that.
MattBaggins
(7,947 posts)School choice in my area is a modern day white flight. Parents who when you really question them, beat around the bush, but it becomes clear, they want their kids away from "those dirty kids".
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)People with the means to do so are going to find a way to put their kids in better schools. I don't blame a parent for trying to give their kid the best education they can.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)When my kids were in school, probably about 20 years ago, a charter school opened in our small town. Up til that point, the public schools had been totally unresponsive to the concerns of the parents and students. No AP; lagged in tech; totally bought in to the "inclusion" theory, which they interpreted as dumbing down everything til the brighter kids were bored out of their socks.
Well, this charter school opened, and there was an attempted mass exodus from the public schools.
Our public schools sat up and took notice. Within a very short time they had figured out how to offer AP courses, they did some on-line classes, and overall, the quality of education improved significantly.
The charter school eventually failed, but it had served its purpose.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To properly fund their schools and demand excellence.
I have the same problem here in Houston. When the state allows creationism to be taught as history, that's really not the fault of the politicians that approve text books, it's the fault of parents who don't hold said pols accountable.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)They can have all the money in the world but if the staff isn't motivated to excel it is all a big waste.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The money spent on public education needs to go to the public schools in hopes that it will be spent wisely to improve them. It should not be wasted on charter schools that may or may not do a better job of educating students. The primary goal is to spend that money in an attempt to fix the system, making sure those currently in that system are properly educated is secondary to that.
groundloop
(13,546 posts)When tax money goes to pay for charter schools it's taking badly needed money away from public schools. Nobody is arguing that wealthy people shouldn't be allowed to send their kids to whatever school they want, but our tax money shouldn't subsidize it (and especially not when it's taking money away from public schools.
It sounds like you're very aware of the problem of unequal funding among school districts, that's a problem that desperately needs to be fixed. Most school districts depend on property taxes for much (or all) of their funding, which results in wealthier districts having good schools and poorer districts having bad schools.
Furthermore, as many have already pointed out, most charter schools don't have necessary oversight to ensure that money is spent wisely, whereas public schools have a large amount of oversight.
As Democrats we need to be advocating for the needed funds to hire and retain good teachers, have adequate school supplies, and have good facilities.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)I know this is a touchy subject here. I didn't post the OP to poke the hornets nest, was just looking for a honest barometer of school choice on DU.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)district granted and controlled. It's also lottery pick, and high school charters specializing in certain missions are encouraged and very popular.
Bit of a different animal in Philly.
dsc
(53,306 posts)we all know the answer to that, they get put back into public schools thus it is still selection just after the fact.
kcr
(15,522 posts)It's not a matter of misunderstanding. It's a matter of disagreeing. You can keep repeating your talking points explaining your position regarding charter schools, but you're not going to convince those of us who support public schools. Sorry.
hack89
(39,181 posts)especially when charter schools are public schools like they are in Rhode Island.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Charter schools are a gross infringement on our public school system. Even if some think there may be tiny pockets where they're kind of sort of not as bad. They have to be outright rejected if we have any hope for a fight for equality in this country.
hack89
(39,181 posts)they are tired of lousy schools. Most of the charter schools in RI are chartered to public school districts or town governments. For profit charters are not allowed.
kcr
(15,522 posts)If the only argument you have against charter schools being bad for our public schools is, Well, people vote for them! That's pretty weak. People vote for all kinds of things. It's not a validation that it's right. Were the voters of RI presented with the option to make their public schools better? If not, that doesn't shore up your argument.
hack89
(39,181 posts)the feeling is that the problem with RI is systemic but not due to poor funding - the worst performing schools in the states have the highest per student spending rates. Conversely the best performing schools have some of the lowest. And that does not include federal funding that goes to the poorest school districts.
Rhode Island has a well deserved reputation for corruption and inefficiency so people are not looking at the state to fix things - they feel the state is the problem here. So they push their local school boards for charters to try to gain more local say over their schools.
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)Just don't take another penny away from public schools to fund them.
DURHAM D
(32,952 posts)move into a better school district.
groundloop
(13,546 posts)I think everyone would agree that the real solution is to properly fund ALL schools and to hire and retain good teachers so that every school is a good school.
DURHAM D
(32,952 posts)My father was President of the school board. My mother had been head of the PTA. My entire extended family for four generations were teachers and civic leaders (the two generations younger than mine are also teachers).
However, the issue was property taxes. Property taxes are the main source of revenue for schools. They needed to be raised higher than the farmers were/are agreeable to. The farmers won.
So, we moved.
I never ever complain about property taxes.
Festivito
(13,837 posts)Could have had a softer landing. Might have spread enough information to stop it. But, the fear was too much since there was no solution apparent aside from the old throw more money or add a new program.
The timing was ripe after years of Alan Greenspan and his Chicago failed and failed again economics left a hole in available employment and a another chance to break unions emerged. Democrats felt helpless with no solution to rotted schools, so Republicans struck while their iron was hot.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Usually, whatever someone really believes in, they'll be anti-choice about it, because whatever they want to do isn't going to function correctly unless more and more people are part of it. So basically any organized effort. Public schools, religion, government, economic systems, political parties, taxes, voting, social movements, etc, etc, the list goes on.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Not everyone is individualistic in their thinking. It really has nothing to do with being pro-choice on somethings but anti-choice on other things. Who is actually pro-choice on everything? Not too many people are pro-murder, or pro-child labor. Individualistic thinkers too often miss that what's good for the community is also good for them, and a declining community is no good either. They don't think big picture.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)not free to divert their tax dollars away from the public endeavour of collective education, to pay for it.
"that's not fair"! you say. Bull. Paying for public education is the responsibility of the entire public, whether they have kids or not, because collectively we as a society have decided that the education of children is a public good.
You may notice I have italicized that word, education. There's a reason for that. Because education doesn't just mean "teaching kids any old stuff", it means imparting knowledge (as well as instructing in the ability to reason and critically think)...
Knowledge, as in, facts. Evidence-based truth.
"School choice" is a misnomer, a ruse designed by people who don't want their taxes to pay to teach children pesky scientific facts like, yes, all life on Earth evolved over the past 4 billion years or so.
People who want to teach their children that the Earth was created in six days 4,000 years ago by a magic invisible being in the sky, and that Jesus rode a dinosaur, are free to do so--- however, they are not free to divert funds from the collective endeavour of educating the next generation, because teaching kids nonsense instead of scientific fact is not education.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)you get lousy schools. The problem is not with the schools it is with the voters.
The right has been turning the public against public schools and teachers for years.
Charter schools do not take all students. By not fixing public schools you will get some students being better off than others. Poor students will be worse off.
If you want your kid in a private school pay for it. It is not the government's job to fund schools for elite kids.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lottery. They are a bit of a different animal that your typical charter model, which is why they are so popular there.
procon
(15,805 posts)religious training
home schooling
untested and unproven teaching methods
disproved teaching methods
schools without accreditation
schools that discriminate against disabled kids
schools that segregate by race or ethnicity
schools that discriminate against poor kids
schools with a limited curriculum
schools with minimal learning resources
private schools for the wealthy
schools that divert public funding from public education
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)What is a Democratic issue is improving school performance and funding (which means not giving people an opt-out funded by the taxpayer; if you want to send your kids to a private school you can do it on your own dime, or, yes, you can move, and take yourself out of the property tax base that supports the schools, and contribute to making the problem worse!)
hunter
(40,320 posts)Let's work for excellent free public educations for all, through college or trade school.
You want a nation where the wealthy get good schools and everyone else gets ripped off by grifters and fundamentalist religious fucksters?
You want your tax money diverterted to crappy union-busting corporations?
Go away, and don't come back.
Our family has lived bad schools, my kids, my nephews and nieces. It's our job as parents to make up for the education their schools lack, but NEVER at the expense of others. The privatization of education and the charter school bullshit harm the education of those who have no other choices but their local public schools.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Subsidized by the city to get kids into better schools. Charter schools and expensive private academies aren't the same thing.
Everything you've said demonstrates my point.
What happens to the kids who don't get into the "better schools?"
Hey, I have an idea! Let's fix the not-better schools. Yes, it will take money, but then NOBODY will have to suffer this bullshit.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)POC means people of color. See it used here all the time. I get you do not like my POV ( point of view, by the way), glad to bring you up to speed or, UTS..let me know if there's any other newfangled lingo you need help with.. Cheers hunter.
hunter
(40,320 posts)You are not the Doctor I know.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)We can disagree without insulting each other, i let my emotions get the best of me.. Sorry hunter.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I support the best education I've ever had, that's public my friends.
It angers me that my tax dollars are spent on promoting home schooling for all. It promotes isolation from society, imo.
bluedye33139
(1,474 posts)I remember one study of charter schools in Florida that showed they were essentially monoethnic (students only of one race or ethnicity) and the fact that really blew me away was: Not one of the charter schools in Metro-Dade had a single disabled or learning-disability student. By cherry-picking their student population, the charter schools have amazingly better stats. Public schools would have better stats if they could reject students for no stated reason left and right.
For me, the issue is that we need strong public schools, and the charter school movement has not strengthened public education at all.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Stinky The Clown
(68,912 posts)School Choice = GOPeeBullshit
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Or, your not a good Dem.. Got it.
Stinky The Clown
(68,912 posts)
Warpy
(114,359 posts)There are schools with a high test failure rate because they use flash cards with blind kids and expect kids with severe autism or cerebral palsy to "fill in the bubble" and fail them when they can't. Your shiny little charter school gets to eliminate those kids from their student body so sometimes they look better on tests. Sometimes they don't since they lowball teachers and supplies to make more money.
Since you don't have any kids, this is all just rhetorical, anyway. When you have them, you might look at it differently. You might even do a little research and find out that local "failing school" actually has a few award winning teachers in it.
In any case, if you ever do have a kid and you don't like how slowly s/he is progressing, you have the option of sitting down with the kid every night with the homework and even some supplementary materials you find online or at the library and help your child achieve his/her best. One beneficiary of that approach is Barack Obama.
Stop falling for right wing rhetoric and do some actual research. You're better than this.
Skittles
(169,185 posts)we are not idiots here
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of charter...i.e. district granted and overseen, lottery picked. It's popular in Philly for that reason, and there are many excellent charters.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Doctor Who
(147 posts)This is general discussion, right? Or is my view at odds w/ the TOS?
renie408
(9,854 posts)Which is Ok, but Dems tend to think that privatizing education is not a sound solution.
It just seemed a little out of place.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)that they are granted and overseen by the school district. Makes them a little different from the "charter school" of other places. My child was one off on the Russell Byers lottery, but we eventually sent her to a very fine Quaker School.
hunter
(40,320 posts)Maybe we should have a lottery for all education. Whoever doesn't win, wealthy or poor, would be denied any sort of education, public or private.
Think of the money we'd save!
It would be a boon for the privately owned prisons too.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)your kid in. It's considered very fair in Philly. People attend the lotteries.
Ironically, there are Philly public schools like Masterman who have more stringent admissions.
hunter
(40,320 posts)
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)their children NOW to forego what they can get.
hunter
(40,320 posts)Educating our children is no less important.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MyOwnPeace
(17,435 posts)if public schools got the money they needed and the Military Industrial Complex had to hold bake sales and carnivals?
hunter
(40,320 posts)
Throd
(7,208 posts)I make no apologies.
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)I support public schools and happily pay my property taxes
But I'm fortunate to have have choices and I chose.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)I now have a son at Harvey Mudd and a daughter at Caltech, one of them should be able to take care of me in my old age.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)with the Philadelphia public schools, how on earth do you know that they are "horrible"?
This post reminds me of 25 years ago, when we were living in Minneapolis and my kids were attending the public schools. Our yuppie neighbors (who didn't even have children yet, but were about to) informed us one day that they were going to be putting their house up for sale to move to a suburb: because the schools in the city were so "horrible." White flight. I can tell you that those schools were excellent, and my kids got not only a wonderful education but learned how to appreciate others who were different. Those people knew NOTHING about what was really going on in the schools.
Look, I'm not 100% against charters: certain kids may well need a smaller, specially oriented school to fit their needs. But the whole idea has gotten out of hand. They should not be widely available substitutes for the public schools. Back in my kids' days there was school choice: but it was a choice among public schools (you could choose from regular, Montessori, open, fundamentals, or continuous progress, depending on what learning style and atmosphere you felt was best for your kid). Then there started to be some charters, mostly for kids with problems--kids at risk of dropping out, etc.
Moving to the suburbs is the biggest copout--and possibly not a good choice for your nonexistent children.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Because I don't have kids I can't comment on the condition of Philadelphia schools? My tax dollars are funding those schools.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Without investigating yourself? Good luck with that.
I never said you couldn't comment, just that your comments are not based on first-hand experience.
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Every morning, it's shootings, fires, and car accidents.
annabanana
(52,802 posts)Orrex
(66,583 posts)A few years ago I attended a school board meeting to speak out against a proposed charter school (even got quoted in the paper). Happily, the board wasn't on board, so they easily voted down the proposal, but I had time to speak with a few of the supporters.
This is a small town with a low median income, and there were only a dozen or so people in the gallery. Six of those were directly affiliate with the company seeking to open the charter, while the other supporters were elderly and white, none of them had children in the school system, and they were all remarkably passionate about it. Curiously, the company's spokesperson couldn't give any specifics about how they'd take care of students with special needs, or such minor programs as school nurse and janitorial duties. The one thing they were sure of is that they wanted funding.
As I noted in the meeting, if my town's school district has one problem, it isn't a surplus of cash, so a parasitic charter school siphoning off the real school's limited resources would be a disaster.
It's always interesting to see who's advocating for charter schools with the greatest fervor.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's a way for people who don't want kids to learn about things like evolution to not have to pay for public education in those simple scientific facts.
GreenPartyVoter
(73,357 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)People have been bashing teachers unions and public schools both here and in the Democratic Party for ages.
YvonneCa
(10,117 posts)...one could ever need or want. 
http://dianeravitch.com/
Summary= Charter schools don't generally do any better than public schools.
Her book on the subject is great, too!
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)I keep up with her blog on Facebook and also read her book. ^^ Everyone read Diane.^^
Doctor Who
(147 posts)Without giving away your EXACT address, neighborhood are you from?
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)I live in a school district that was overtaken by conservative "education reformers" 8yrs ago. School choice was how they came to power. They have totally abandoned our public schools, grant land to charters left and right and then those charters siphon money from the public schools. The charters are also, at least in our state, not mandated to follow the district's policies. Most of the charters will cherry pick the best students and take very few special needs children. They do not have to have licensed teachers, if you have experience that could cross over to teaching, you can teach. And charters are managed by for profit corporations. They get to be called a public school but really are not.
The only school choice I like is allowing open enrolling in other public schools. Which we can do that too. We can also open enroll out of the school district.
The problem is that many BOEs work insidiously. Most people assume they work in the best interest of children, but, unless many parents are involved, going to meetings, watching what that BOE is doing, even requesting their financials be made public, they can be wasting funds on pet projects and bloated admin salaries that the community isn't even aware of.
People and parents need to be involved when it comes to their school districts and BOE. Otherwise, they will do what they want because no one knows and sees.
Having said that, there are some very good charters. But studies show, they really don't provide a better education that public schools. Our states just need to properly fund public schools.
lindysalsagal
(22,823 posts)Great reply. Thankyou.
rocktivity
(44,970 posts)as a better democratic issue.
rocktivity
aikoaiko
(34,213 posts)In the Savannah GA district, many of the schools are taking up speciality themes like STEM, arts, International Bacaulaureate, etc. and seats are scarce and students compete.
It's had some positive effects. Obviously the most talented students are congregating and well together. It's also improving the reputation among the middle class who might be inclined to go private.
With the exception of parents with schools in affluent residential pockets, most upper middle and upper class parents default to private schools.
MFM008
(20,042 posts)If they are crappy its because republicans wont fully fund them.
P E R I O D.
This issue of charter schools was struck down by WA state supreme court.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Democrats should be moving heaven and earth to make sure that every public school has the support and resources it needs, no matter where it is.
disclaimer: I'm a teacher, and I'm not opposed to PUBLIC school choice, in some circumstances. I am opposed to charter schools, "public" or not.
Charter schools have been held out as an escape from "bad" schools. That strengthens the anti-public education and anti-teacher propaganda, and smooths the path for privatization, which is the ultimate goal. And privatization should NOT be a Democratic issue.
My district has two "public" charter schools. Sort of. "Public" because they are supposedly under the jurisdiction of our public school district. Which doesn't mean much, here. They get special favors the rest of us don't, have the worst graduation rates in the district, and regularly dump any students who aren't successful with them back to us, while keeping the funding for those students.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)That helps with some of the problems of charter schools. But frankly, Baltimore is failing to provide a good education for a lot of its residents. And I don't think the problem is just a lack of resources for the schools. A lot of the problem is a lack of resources for the families of the kids. There is a need for innovation, for smaller classes, for identifying needs in families and providing resources to meet those needs.
Other areas, like those in neighboring Howard County, have awesome public schools. You'd be crazy to send your kids to a charter school instead of the regular public ones.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)That doesn't mean that the union doesn't get bullied into signing off on what the district wants when the district supports charters over regular schools. And our elected school board does. We really need more liberal Democrats to run for local school boards. Of course, in red areas they might have a hard time getting elected. A catch-22.
Resources for the families of the kids are just as important, of course, but that issue doesn't fall under public education. In my region, we do have the "Family Access Network," which funds a part-time employee to connect with families and help them get what they need. That can include school supplies, clothes, food, glasses, medical care, and transportation to any appointments. They are a vital part of what we do, and I wish all states and districts had that resource. It's a start.
Innovation? Sure. Charter schools seem to offer it because they don't follow the same rules we do. We are leashed by top-down "reforms" designed around standardized testing. The narrowing of the curriculum, the teaching to the test...it doesn't allow for any innovation that doesn't involve turning students into data bits on a chart. The right kind of support would abolish corporate reform.
Smaller classes? Teachers have been saying this for decades. Nobody wants to pay for it. That's on the general public, who need to demand it.
What makes Howard County different?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)But when you have chaos in a 25 student classroom, cutting down the size can be very useful.
Good point about the possible bad impact on the unions.
Howard County is pretty wealthy and so the kids get what they need in their very early years. The schools are very diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, but the one thing most of the kids have in common are parents who spend a lot of time and effort supporting their education. Of course, having money in the family helps a lot to make that possible. The teachers are well-paid and mostly really good. The schools even have great music programs. I couldn't believe the middle school orchestra and band that I heard. They were high school quality.
In both the states I've taught in over the last 25 years, 25 IS a small class size. Normal class sizes start at about 32 and go up from there. There is a large body of research that tells us that under 20 is the most effective class size for all; I say "under 20" because some say 12, some 15, some 17, etc..
"They get what they need in their early years." YES. We (educators) all know that brain development between birth and age 4 is crucial to building the neural connections needed for later academic learning. We know kindergarteners do not start at the same place.
I can think of a lot of solutions, some within the public ed system and some not, but they all require resources. Money.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)that was first aired a few years ago. (Sorry, I don't remember the title). It is an eye-opener. It would definitely take more resources to do some of the things that are needed to bring equal educational opportunity to Baltimore City. It would be worth the money IMHO.
JohnnyRingo
(20,402 posts)In the decline of manufacturing, the teacher's union is one of the largest donors to the Democratic Party.
The plan is to transfer students to charter and religious schools with federal vouchers that pay tuition. After public schools close due to decreased enrollment, the congress pulls the subsidies, leaving public schools to go to residents for tax levies to reopen their schools.
The win is all round good for the GOP. Public schooling gets funded more by local residents leading to "the best education you can afford". Union teacher get laid off or forced to work at charter schools causing unions to collapse. Less federal tax money goes to fund public schools across the country.
The hope that wealthy kids get a better education than poor students is a long time Republican goal. To do that they have to end federal financing of public schools through No Child Left Behind..
kcr
(15,522 posts)They're so good at disguising it that even some progressives are falling for it. This does not receive nearly the attention or the fight it deserves and that concerns me more that almost anything else. The push for equality will be all but impossible without addressing this.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It appears that was the intention. Anti-union, pro-segregation.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)That means ALL school buildings are equal - like with the WPA program that built hundreds of schools around the country during the Great Depression. ALL teachers are held to the same standards. ALL students are given an equal chance. ALL students should be taught a similar course of studies. It is too easy to say, well lets just let people decide where their kid goes to school. How about fixing every school and school system in this country. Schools are the same as infrastructure.
no_hypocrisy
(54,112 posts)Parents already have the right to choose: If they have the money, they can enroll their child in either a secular or religious PRIVATE school.
Charter schools are a red herring argument for school choice within public schools.
Democrats advocate for more funding so that more public schools can improve their performance, buy more supplies, hire qualified teachers, and fill in the gaps in the students' lives outside of school.
John Dewey always believed that democracy starts with the availability of solid public education. "School choice", implying diverting funds from public schools, does not belong in the democratic platform. I can understand why republicans would have it in theirs: tax dollars that the 1% doesn't pay going to subsidize tuitions for parochial schools or toney private schools from which generations of their families have graduated.
Ilsa
(63,759 posts)Hillary fought to get them the opportunity for a free, appropriate public education. Public schools need support for educating all children, whether they have an IEP (Individual Education Plan) or are academically exceptional.
Private and charter schools won't touch special needs kids, but P & C schools are thrilled to steal money from public schools that serve everyone.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I would no doubt want my kid to go to a better school. But I would be fighting to improve the public schools, rather than funnel money to private corporations. Charter schools in Indiana have been mostly a disaster.
librechik
(30,955 posts)suck needed funds away from Public schools. The reason Philly schools are bad is due to lack of funding and corruption. It's stealth privatization, designed and paid for by Koch Industries and the like..
Hekate
(100,131 posts)They give my tax money to people who are offended by their precious snowflakes having to go to school with non-Christians, or brown kids, or kids with funny accents, or being made to read textbooks without a religious slant, or learn that evolution is real, or...
Do you get the picture? By the time they get done with taking away tax money from the public school system and giving it to people who want to send their kids to private schools, the only kids left in public school will be those who are too poor or too far behind or too disabled or too obstreperous for private schools to want. Because you know what? Private schools still cost a bunch of money and they are not obligated to take anybody they don't want to take.
Ask yourself: Who does this serve?
B Calm
(28,762 posts)and returns to the public school, the money stays with the charter school.
mahina
(20,311 posts)Voucher system funds come from the local school.
One thing we did get right here in the islands is that every school gets the same amount of funding per student in any area, rich or otherwise. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be.
Ms. Toad
(38,078 posts)Even when the option to attend charter schools using public money is done by lottery, those with more resources (i.e. already ahead) are the ones who can take advantage of it.
Resources like: the ability to understand the lottery system and enter it, the ability to accommodate the expanded hours it takes to attend a more distant school - including potentially the ability to drive your child to and from the school in order to accommodate after school/after bus activities, the money to buy school uniforms (that many require), the time to engage in often mandatory parent participation activities, etc.
Equality in admission is not inherently equality in ability to take advantage of the opportunity that admission affords. The closest we can get to providing equal access is to concentrate on providing quality neighborhood schools - where no one has to be able to afford the additional resources it requires to participate in a charter/specialized school.
You would move heaven and earth - but I'd hazard a guess that you likely have the resources (intellectual/financial/etc.) to do so. Many of the parents of the most needy chilcren do not.
runaway hero
(835 posts)we don't need to start sports mills for 5 year olds.