3 ms·
Charter schools may not be a panacea for low income neighborhoods. But there are a lot of low income parents who do really care and can devote time and energy t
by NoPiece 12y ago
Charter schools may not be a panacea for low income neighborhoods. But there are a lot of low income parents who do really care and can devote time and energy to education. For those families, charter schools can change lives, so lets give them that option.
- themartorana 12y agoI agree, and I disagree. In most cases (each state is different) the charter school is paid a stipend per pupil from the local school district. Here in Philadelphia, and in other places, the sheer amount of charter schools pulls significant money out of public schools, which are already almost destitute. I love the idea of a child getting a chance that they wouldn't normally have. But I wonder if it's at the expense of children of uneducated or uninvolved parents? The one thing you can never do is blame the child for the parents' level of involvement. But it seems this may be punishing them doubly. It's a tough nut to crack...
- jack-r-abbit 12y agoHere in the East Bay (San Fran Area), the charter school my kids attend gets ~$1300 less per student. So every student that moves from a non-charter to a charter frees up ~$1300 to be used another way by the district (or at least reduces the financial burden of the district if it is already almost destitute). So I wonder... if all those ~1200 charter students were attending the non-charter schools in the district, what happens to that ~$1.5 Million gap? I don't imagine that the school district just has an extra $1.5M sitting around to cover the difference. So does it spread that cut around so now all public schools get less per student? It seems to me that the charter school is saving money not sucking it out. Even if they are only as good as the non-charter schools, they would be doing the same job for less money.