More on charters hurting districts
On Nov. 30, I posted a comment
about a proposed charter school's attempt to force itself into San Jose's Moreland School District against the district's will.
An anonymous reader posted a response just yesterday to my 2-month-old item. It's alarming.
— Caroline
about a proposed charter school's attempt to force itself into San Jose's Moreland School District against the district's will.
An anonymous reader posted a response just yesterday to my 2-month-old item. It's alarming.
Charter passed County Board February 1st . Now Charter plans to open in the Fall as usual the School District lacks space to house the charter . It is now forced to close two schools and give layoff notices to Teachers and staff March 15th . Can any one please give any legal advice?How long is this going to go on before the press, liberal/progressives and communities get it about how undemocratic and harmful charter schools are? There will be a tipping point, but a lot of damage may be done before that happens.
Sun Feb 05, 01:59:12 PM
— Caroline
10 Comments:
Caroline, it is clear that many parents want small schools for their kids. If SFUSD is systematically shutting down small schools to save money, charters will undoubtedly crop up to fill the void. How would you suggest we get around this?
And charters will cause more schools to be closed. They're a short-term attempted solution that causes long-term harm.
I don't have an easy solution, but grabbing at a fix that is intended to destroy public education obviously is the wrong one.
SFUSD is shutting down small schools to save money in the face of dropping enrollment, which is a fairly key point.
I posted on a couple of other lists some suggestions for working to keep your own child's school strong and healthy. Those small ideas are steps on the road to stemming the enrollment drop and increasing support for our schools. I'll post them here when I get a moment.
......how undemocratic and harmful charter schools are?
It's so undemocratic for parents to choose to enroll in a school voluntarily isn't it?
And charters will cause more schools to be closed.
I guess you are arguing that charters are not schools.
Anonymous wrote: "It's so undemocratic for parents to choose to enroll in a school voluntarily isn't it?"
The choice involved in selected a "school of choice" over a school of necesity is not a democratic choice; it is a consumer choice. Capitalism is not democracy.
I'll correct my semantics: Charters cause OTHER schools to be closed. For that matter, a new charter can certainly cause another charter to close too, by competing for a limited number of students.
The thing that's undemocratic is that school boards and communities have no say over whether a charter comes into their community. The citizens elect the school board, yet its control has been eliminated and ceded to basically any charter that wants to insert itself into the community, demand the site it's legally entitled to and get public funding for it.
It's exactly as if there were a Planning Department and a City Council, but the law allowed certain types of projects to be built in town regardless of what the Planning Department and the City Council wanted.
I'd say that's pretty undemocratic, yes.
Point taken. You are emphasizing democracy (the will of the majority) over liberty (the freedom of the individual). A reasonable point.
But if that's the case, why is democracy at a district level preferable to democracy at the state level, where the people's representatives authorized charter schools?
In opting for a centralized approach I think you are running against the tide of culture. In all aspects of society (media, technology, citizens' expectations) the presumption is for more decentralized decision making and individual choice.
Perhaps a better tack for your argument would be to remove the state from the funding side of the education equation, and bring the responsibility for education taxing and spending back to the district level.
Then the districts could fund what they wanted and be held accountable to the voters.
Seems to me that the charter setup is more centralized, not DEcentralized. It's mostly chains (from Edison to Envision to Green Dot) that are starting charter schools, with the state behind them. Districts and communities have no say. That's not decentralized and it's not democratic.
And regarding liberty, anyone is free to start a private school -- there's certainly liberty to do that.
But in the case of charters, it's with public funding and within a public structure providing services.
It's mostly chains (from Edison to Envision to Green Dot) that are starting charter schools, with the state behind them....
And regarding liberty, anyone is free to start a private school....
Caroline I do believe we will forever have different opinions on US education, so I'll make another set of points and leave it at that. I wish you well in improving education, but I don't think you're on the right track in several respects.
More liberty in education would be the ability to choose a school that you think is best for your children, not the freedom to start a private school and pay double for the privilege of education.
Regarding "chains" of charter schools, how is that different that curriculum defined by a district?
And if I have a choice of chains, doesn't that mean I would have more choice of educational options?
As I learn more about state-sponsored education, I think it would be preferable to either devolve raising revenue back to the schools districts, or dispense with the districts altogether and have all schools be chartered by the state.
If the state is responsible for setting standards and dispensing money to schools, why have districts?
The state pays districts around $10,000 per pupil per year in the current budget. But I continue to hear SF schools say they receive around $5,000 per pupil.
If you want to maximize the dollars that actually get to the classroom, eliminate the districts!
I say this, of course, knowing it will never happen. But that's the problem, everyone knows that there are deficiencies in state-sponsored education, but too many issues are simply off the table and not for discussion.
// Regarding "chains" of charter schools, how is that different that curriculum defined by a district? //
It's not! But the district has accountability (to the voters via the elected school board), and the charters are accountable to no one.
Still, my point was that these are MORE centralized schools, not DEcentralized schools -- run by growing chains, often based elsewhere, and chartered by the state, not the local school board.
Eliminating school districts is certainly an idea; not something I've studied. I watch the charter scene closely, so that's what I'm writing about.
Post a Comment
<< Home