6 ms·

> Attach a specific dollar amount to a student. Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. Allow it to go where there is little to n

by baldfat 11y ago

> Attach a specific dollar amount to a student. Allow that student to go to whichever school they want. End of story. Allow it to go where there is little to no public over sight, no public school board or checks and balances, under performing scores, teachers paid $20,000 less with no pension, and CEOs making millions. Charter Schools are a part of the problem with American education. Sure some Charter Schools are good so are some Public School but as a whole Charter Schools are not for America's children but for the non-profit and for profit companies that run them. PUBLIC SCHOOLS are the back bone of our educational system and democracy. Sending to school that take monetary advantage of our tax money with no over sight is wrong for everyone but the people who get the money. Who is running America's Charter School: https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actually-running-americas-charter-schools/ https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/whos-actua...

msandford 11y ago
Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools are more affordable. And plenty of private schools have a good track record, while having similar per-pupil costs as public schools. If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.
  - msandford 11y ago
    You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
    - baldfat 11y ago
      Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
      - msandford 11y ago
        So the money for education can only be spent on the kind of education YOU like, and not the kind of education that the parents like? You do realize that's incredibly arrogant, right? You and other enlightened people know what's best, but everyone else who disagrees with you about what's best is unenlightened swine? That's tautological.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Because it doesn't cost a flat amount per student. The fact that funding is fixed per student doesn't mean that all students are equally costly to educate, and private schools that don't have a universal acceptance mandate impose selection criteria which tend to select for students which are less expensive to serve, increasing the per-student costs (but not funding!) in the public schools if public funds are used on an equal per-student basis to support students going to those private schools.
  - msandford 11y ago
    That's quite an interesting point. It's similar to the reason why insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions, isn't it?
- warfangle 11y ago
  > If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school? Except it doesn't. In fact, at-risk children going to poorly performing schools cost more per dollar: they need more extra curricular activities, possibly counseling, lower cost lunches, a lower teacher:student ratio, and so on and so forth. More children at poorly performing schools have more problems with their home life, and school is about the only thing other than organized crime that can give them structure. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.. :)
- pfooti 11y ago
  In addition to the per-student cost-to-educate not being constant, but charters only admitting the cheap students (as mentioned in sibling posts), charters also tend to have much lower salary costs, because in most states charter school teachers aren't part of the teachers' union. They have lower pay, worse benefits, and trend quite young. The charters, for the most part, are only making use of the cheapest, least experienced teachers in order to educate the students who are most likely to do well no matter what school they attend. After those teachers are chewed up and spat out, they're replaced by other fungible TFA folks who are just as inexperienced and just as willing to work unpaid overtime until they burn out. As a predatory move to extract value from a very large market, it's commendable capitalism. As a general trend that undercuts the quality of public education nationwide, well, it's very distressing.
  - maratd 11y ago
    I find it funny how you completely ignored the most important aspect of the equation. The student. The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. Why are they doing that? Could it be, that in spite of everything you mentioned ... charters are a better option for the student? Isn't that's what's important? What's broken with the public education system isn't the funding, not the teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, or the facilities. It's none of those things. It's demented notion that the system exists for the sake of the teachers/unions/administrators/etc. It doesn't. It exists for the students. Do what's best for them. Let them choose where they spend 12+ years of their life.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. Generally not the case. The parents are, usually, choosing. > People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. You might reasonably make that assumption for cases where the people making the decision are making it for themselves, and with sufficient information and skill to make a reasonable prediction of the utility that will result from each available choice. (A stronger form of this is a central element of rational choice theory, so its common to Econ 101 models of behavior -- and lots of people have internalized these models without understanding the assumptions underpinning them, and how limited they are in the real world.) I think its far from evident that school choices under the conditions they are actually made meet that description.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Why not let parents choose the school? As long as private schools are required to take any comer can cannot charge tuition beyond the per pupil amount. Somehow I doubt any private school advocate wants actual school choice.
briandear 11y ago
Then why don't the Obama kids go to public school? Citing security would be silly. A school is a school. Even the President doesn't believe in public schools. If he does, he sure isn't eating his dog food.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  While this has great rhetorical impact, it is still an appeal to authority. To me, the Obamas are just like any other rich(er) family. The PotUS has no special expertise in this domain. They can afford to send their kids to private school, they believe that school to be superior to the public schools their kids would otherwise attend, so they pay the private tuition. As a parent, I agree with this. I, however, do not have a $400k income with a $169k expense account and a sweet pension plan, like he does. In short, his kids don't attend public school because he can afford for them to go somewhere better. I am not willing to penalize any child for the sake of their parents' political views (or offices), nor am I willing to restrict people from spending their own money just because they might buy something I don't like.
  - lliamander 11y ago
    it is true that the president may have no special expertise in assessing whether private schools are better than government schools, but it strikes me that any support he expresses for public schools is going to ring hollow if he isn't personally invested in the success of government schools. I could be mistaken, but as far as I am aware no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). I am not a fan of having a centralized governmental school system (I think the indoctrination risk is greater, because then there aren't competing institutions around to teach anything different) but it strikes me that any voter who does believe in government schools should demand that their representatives send their own kids to governmental schools as a sign of good faith.
    - vellum 11y ago
      > no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). About half of Congress sends their kids to public school. http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-send-their-kids-to-public-schools http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-...

by baldfat 11y ago

msandford 11y ago

Public schools also do plenty of dumb things. It's not as though charter schools have a lock on this. A lot of people want "vouchers" so that private schools are more affordable. And plenty of private schools have a good track record, while having similar per-pupil costs as public schools. If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school?

baldfat 11y ago
Charter Schools = They take 100% of the money from the public school and the money follows the student. > why does the state really care which one the child attends? Well I as a tax payer cares. If those school fare even worst and the administration and CEO/President of the foundations makes millions at the expense of children there is a concern. Public Schools work and have worked for decades. We have a problem with inner city schools and a big part is unfair funding, but killing public schools and give it over to various schools with no public oversight just government over sight is scary. We vote on our School Boards and Directors. We can protest and get Administrators removed. Can't do that to these Charters School. Also privatizing schools will make being a teacher an even worst job.
- msandford 11y ago
  You're not making very coherent arguments. What's wrong with a voucher system whereby the PARENTS of the children being educated are the ones who determine which child the school goes to? Doesn't that make it very easy for the parents to shut bad schools down very quickly? It seems like that solves all the problems you're worried about, while also providing more choices to parents and students. What's the downside?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Voucher and Charter School are two different things. Charter Schools are taking over Public School System. Vochers are evil for many social reasons. I'll just focus on one. So Vouchers really will be the new segregation tool for the 21st Century. Your money will be used to send kids to religious schools you don't like teaching Islam, Christianity in all its forms, or who knows what and if they want to teach the children ignorance and hate and you as a tax payer just flipped the bill for this and can't stop it. I can't see a good voucher system that would answer my fears of miss used funds spent on poor education back by people groups that will not teach based on various world views that are not politically correct and just wrong. Our Brain Drain in America will go into Nuclear Meltdown. To quote the 2002 Supreme Court Voucher Dissent: Justice Breyer on Descent “... all religious institutions cannot be given equal opportunities to the government funding and trying to do so not only turns back the clock on the Constitution, but creates a powder keg in our society.” http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-vouchers/ http://www.pewforum.org/2002/06/28/judgment-day-for-school-v... Back ground: I went to private school and graduated with a Theology Degree and worked as a Pastor for years. I absolutely know that many in the voucher movement see the Government footing the bill for their Christian Education. You have no idea how deep Crazy Christianity can get (Westborogh is just the tip of the ice berge). They will spew their version of crazy that they got with no academic or logically training to children with your tax dollars paying for it.
    - msandford 11y ago
      So the money for education can only be spent on the kind of education YOU like, and not the kind of education that the parents like? You do realize that's incredibly arrogant, right? You and other enlightened people know what's best, but everyone else who disagrees with you about what's best is unenlightened swine? That's tautological.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Because it doesn't cost a flat amount per student. The fact that funding is fixed per student doesn't mean that all students are equally costly to educate, and private schools that don't have a universal acceptance mandate impose selection criteria which tend to select for students which are less expensive to serve, increasing the per-student costs (but not funding!) in the public schools if public funds are used on an equal per-student basis to support students going to those private schools.
- msandford 11y ago
  That's quite an interesting point. It's similar to the reason why insurance companies won't cover pre-existing conditions, isn't it?
warfangle 11y ago
> If it costs $1000/student/month irrespective of if a child goes to a public school or a private school, why does the state really care which one the child attends? Why not let parents choose the school? Except it doesn't. In fact, at-risk children going to poorly performing schools cost more per dollar: they need more extra curricular activities, possibly counseling, lower cost lunches, a lower teacher:student ratio, and so on and so forth. More children at poorly performing schools have more problems with their home life, and school is about the only thing other than organized crime that can give them structure. There was a whole season of The Wire about this.. :)
pfooti 11y ago
In addition to the per-student cost-to-educate not being constant, but charters only admitting the cheap students (as mentioned in sibling posts), charters also tend to have much lower salary costs, because in most states charter school teachers aren't part of the teachers' union. They have lower pay, worse benefits, and trend quite young. The charters, for the most part, are only making use of the cheapest, least experienced teachers in order to educate the students who are most likely to do well no matter what school they attend. After those teachers are chewed up and spat out, they're replaced by other fungible TFA folks who are just as inexperienced and just as willing to work unpaid overtime until they burn out. As a predatory move to extract value from a very large market, it's commendable capitalism. As a general trend that undercuts the quality of public education nationwide, well, it's very distressing.
- maratd 11y ago
  I find it funny how you completely ignored the most important aspect of the equation. The student. The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. Why are they doing that? Could it be, that in spite of everything you mentioned ... charters are a better option for the student? Isn't that's what's important? What's broken with the public education system isn't the funding, not the teachers, not the unions, not the administrators, or the facilities. It's none of those things. It's demented notion that the system exists for the sake of the teachers/unions/administrators/etc. It doesn't. It exists for the students. Do what's best for them. Let them choose where they spend 12+ years of their life.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The students are choosing to attend those charter schools. Generally not the case. The parents are, usually, choosing. > People choose things that are better for themselves. Not always, but often enough that you can safely assume it's true for the majority. You might reasonably make that assumption for cases where the people making the decision are making it for themselves, and with sufficient information and skill to make a reasonable prediction of the utility that will result from each available choice. (A stronger form of this is a central element of rational choice theory, so its common to Econ 101 models of behavior -- and lots of people have internalized these models without understanding the assumptions underpinning them, and how limited they are in the real world.) I think its far from evident that school choices under the conditions they are actually made meet that description.
nmrm2 11y ago
> Why not let parents choose the school? As long as private schools are required to take any comer can cannot charge tuition beyond the per pupil amount. Somehow I doubt any private school advocate wants actual school choice.

briandear 11y ago

Then why don't the Obama kids go to public school? Citing security would be silly. A school is a school. Even the President doesn't believe in public schools. If he does, he sure isn't eating his dog food.

logfromblammo 11y ago
While this has great rhetorical impact, it is still an appeal to authority. To me, the Obamas are just like any other rich(er) family. The PotUS has no special expertise in this domain. They can afford to send their kids to private school, they believe that school to be superior to the public schools their kids would otherwise attend, so they pay the private tuition. As a parent, I agree with this. I, however, do not have a $400k income with a $169k expense account and a sweet pension plan, like he does. In short, his kids don't attend public school because he can afford for them to go somewhere better. I am not willing to penalize any child for the sake of their parents' political views (or offices), nor am I willing to restrict people from spending their own money just because they might buy something I don't like.
- lliamander 11y ago
  it is true that the president may have no special expertise in assessing whether private schools are better than government schools, but it strikes me that any support he expresses for public schools is going to ring hollow if he isn't personally invested in the success of government schools. I could be mistaken, but as far as I am aware no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). I am not a fan of having a centralized governmental school system (I think the indoctrination risk is greater, because then there aren't competing institutions around to teach anything different) but it strikes me that any voter who does believe in government schools should demand that their representatives send their own kids to governmental schools as a sign of good faith.
  - vellum 11y ago
    > no politician (from either side of the aisle) sends their kids to a government school. At least, no politician at the national level (president, congress, etc.). About half of Congress sends their kids to public school. http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-send-their-kids-to-public-schools http://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/how-many-politicians-...