5 ms·

People don't appreciate how money is diverted from already underfunded public schools to charter schools.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Isn't it the same funding per student? The money is diverted from the public schools to the charter schools... because the student has moved from a public school to a charter school. Or is that wrong?
- MereInterest 6y ago
  Irrelevant. Plan a building for 2000 students. Figure out the best location, heating/cooling, building maintenance schedules, etc. Merge districts so that you can offer niche courses for advanced students. Then have the funding cut by 50%, because 1000 of the students go to charter schools. The fixed costs were planned out for the next 20 years, until the rug was pulled out from under schools. Instead, you get fewer teachers, larger class sizes, lower supply budgets, since those are the costs that can be reduced over a short time scale. I'm fine with properly managed charter schools. However, opting out of public education does not entitle you to defund public education.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Aren't these charter schools free and open to everyone? What's the problem? If people don't want to send their children to your public schools then take a look at why.
    - vkou 6y ago
      No, they aren't, because they expel problem students, into the public system. Even if admissions are lottery-based, expulsions are not. Imagine two groceries. One that has to, by law, serve every kind of customer, and one that is allowed to throw out shoplifters, drunks, people high-out-of-their-minds-on-meth, etc. Which one of these will provide better groceries for lower prices?
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        Don't we want better groceries for lower prices? The question is if there is a net benefit in educational outcomes for the combined charter and public system.
        MereInterest 6y ago
        Experimentally: No. Betsy Devos's implementation was tested in Detroit, and failed miserably at teaching children. Expanding it without major, major changes is irresponsible and immoral. Step 1 is a system that doesn't defund public schools in the process.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        can you share a link? What I have read about charter schools in NY was very positive
        MereInterest 6y ago
        Certainly. [1] gives a good overview, on how Devos pushed for more and more charter schools, without any requirement for credentials. [2] is some focus on the history of charter schools in Michigan, Devos's home state. [3] is a local news story (tracked down from some articles that reference it), going into a lawsuit about the poor performance of schools in the Detroit area, following the siphoning of funds to charter schools. The state didn't even attempt to argue that the schools were well-run, and instead argued that "there is no fundamental right to literacy". Maybe I could see charter schools as a reasonable option in some cases. With Betsy Devos at the helm, they should be fought at every turn. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/... [2] https://www.michiganadvance.com/2019/02/12/how-25-years-of-charter-schools-have-changed-detroit/ https://www.michiganadvance.com/2019/02/12/how-25-years-of-c... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20170217112809/https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/218953461-story https://web.archive.org/web/20170217112809/https://www.fox2d...
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      If they are free and open to everyone, that’s a good thing! If they just skim the good students off the top, that’s a bad thing.
- morelisp 6y ago
  First, it is wrong. There's no requirement that charter schools get paid the same per student as public schools. Even when they do, charter schools also often lean heavily on public school resources (e.g. charter schools where I grew up used our public gymnasium, theater, and library regularly). But second, even if the funding is exactly the same, the result is that all the "cheap" i.e. wealthy students (books and technology readily available at home, familial support for their studies, financially able to engage in more expensive educational opportunities outside the classroom) end up in one school while those without these privileges, or with disabilities, end up in the other. Even if you give both the same resources the second school is going to perform worse. And under current US policy, the school that performs worse then gets even less money while the school of rich kids gets more! It's wealth consolidation, pure and simple.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > the result is that all the "cheap" i.e. wealthy students (books and technology readily available at home, familial support for their studies, financially able to engage in more expensive educational opportunities outside the classroom) end up in one school while those without these privileges, or with disabilities, end up in the other I don't understand - are charter schools allowed to refuse to admit disabled students?

Isn't it the same funding per student? The money is diverted from the public schools to the charter schools... because the student has moved from a public school to a charter school. Or is that wrong?

MereInterest 6y ago
Irrelevant. Plan a building for 2000 students. Figure out the best location, heating/cooling, building maintenance schedules, etc. Merge districts so that you can offer niche courses for advanced students. Then have the funding cut by 50%, because 1000 of the students go to charter schools. The fixed costs were planned out for the next 20 years, until the rug was pulled out from under schools. Instead, you get fewer teachers, larger class sizes, lower supply budgets, since those are the costs that can be reduced over a short time scale. I'm fine with properly managed charter schools. However, opting out of public education does not entitle you to defund public education.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Aren't these charter schools free and open to everyone? What's the problem? If people don't want to send their children to your public schools then take a look at why.
  - vkou 6y ago
    No, they aren't, because they expel problem students, into the public system. Even if admissions are lottery-based, expulsions are not. Imagine two groceries. One that has to, by law, serve every kind of customer, and one that is allowed to throw out shoplifters, drunks, people high-out-of-their-minds-on-meth, etc. Which one of these will provide better groceries for lower prices?
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      Don't we want better groceries for lower prices? The question is if there is a net benefit in educational outcomes for the combined charter and public system.
      - MereInterest 6y ago
        Experimentally: No. Betsy Devos's implementation was tested in Detroit, and failed miserably at teaching children. Expanding it without major, major changes is irresponsible and immoral. Step 1 is a system that doesn't defund public schools in the process.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        can you share a link? What I have read about charter schools in NY was very positive
        MereInterest 6y ago
        Certainly. [1] gives a good overview, on how Devos pushed for more and more charter schools, without any requirement for credentials. [2] is some focus on the history of charter schools in Michigan, Devos's home state. [3] is a local news story (tracked down from some articles that reference it), going into a lawsuit about the poor performance of schools in the Detroit area, following the siphoning of funds to charter schools. The state didn't even attempt to argue that the schools were well-run, and instead argued that "there is no fundamental right to literacy". Maybe I could see charter schools as a reasonable option in some cases. With Betsy Devos at the helm, they should be fought at every turn. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/08/a-sobering-look-at-what-betsy-devos-did-to-education-in-michigan-and-what-she-might-do-as-secretary-of-education/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/12/... [2] https://www.michiganadvance.com/2019/02/12/how-25-years-of-charter-schools-have-changed-detroit/ https://www.michiganadvance.com/2019/02/12/how-25-years-of-c... [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20170217112809/https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/218953461-story https://web.archive.org/web/20170217112809/https://www.fox2d...
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    If they are free and open to everyone, that’s a good thing! If they just skim the good students off the top, that’s a bad thing.
morelisp 6y ago
First, it is wrong. There's no requirement that charter schools get paid the same per student as public schools. Even when they do, charter schools also often lean heavily on public school resources (e.g. charter schools where I grew up used our public gymnasium, theater, and library regularly). But second, even if the funding is exactly the same, the result is that all the "cheap" i.e. wealthy students (books and technology readily available at home, familial support for their studies, financially able to engage in more expensive educational opportunities outside the classroom) end up in one school while those without these privileges, or with disabilities, end up in the other. Even if you give both the same resources the second school is going to perform worse. And under current US policy, the school that performs worse then gets even less money while the school of rich kids gets more! It's wealth consolidation, pure and simple.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > the result is that all the "cheap" i.e. wealthy students (books and technology readily available at home, familial support for their studies, financially able to engage in more expensive educational opportunities outside the classroom) end up in one school while those without these privileges, or with disabilities, end up in the other I don't understand - are charter schools allowed to refuse to admit disabled students?