Why are liberals so against charter schools?

[Anonymous]

Why should poor people be told to eat cake & suck it up if they don’t like their neighborhood school’s admin, test scores or style?

[Anonymous]

In the micro - parents should do what they have to do. No liberal I know blames anyone for making a game time decision that's best for their kid.

In the macro - charter schools pull resources from public schools and don't educate all children. They're not always a choice for many kids with disabilities. Ask if your local charter has a self contained classroom, or life skills.

[Anonymous]

Because it will defund/make public schools worse for most “poor people” who can’t snag a seat at a charter.

[Anonymous]

Huh? I'm not entirely following your logic, but speaking for the DC system, charter schools pull better performing kids from the local neighborhood schools and the system requires a level of parental engagement that favors families with their lives together enough to do the extra work to research, apply, and transport kids to non-neighborhood schools. Charter schools also arguably saved the DC public school system, so I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm anti-charter. I would say I have a preference for public schools, but charters have a place within the system.

[Anonymous]

They're pretty popular in DC, aren't they?

[Anonymous]

Charter school options give low income parents better choices than the typical failing public schools in poor areas.

Anyone who cares about the crisis in education fully supports charter schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the micro - parents should do what they have to do. No liberal I know blames anyone for making a game time decision that's best for their kid.

In the macro - charter schools pull resources from public schools and don't educate all children. They're not always a choice for many kids with disabilities. Ask if your local charter has a self contained classroom, or life skills.

I agree. I'll also add that a lot of liberals support transfer lotteries

[Anonymous]

Poor kids who have involved parents don’t exist to be model pawns for other poor kids.

DC’s childless population would be comparable to SF’s if charters weren’t present.

[Anonymous]

Because "pulling resources from public schools" means taking money from public school teachers. Typically, 80% of a school budget goes to salaries. So, when you put a kid in a charter school, the public school has less money for salaries. Teachers unions really, really hate that.

OTOH, most of the research shows that charter schools that are started and run by public school teachers can often be the most successful.

[Anonymous]

I feel stuck on this one because I understand the problem with charters with regards to public schools BUT I am so frustrated with our public school for things that are only minimally about demographics and are mostly about what I consider to be outdated, developmentally inappropriate rules and teaching methods. We're trying to go charter just to get away from this environment I think is not conducive to learning.

I know anti-charter people will tell me "work to change your school." But that's such a huge expectation. I have a job, we're not rich. I understand the problems with charters, but it's SO MUCH EASIER for me to find a charter that has an approach I like better and just send my kid there.

My ideal would be for my local neighborhood school to offer a better environment. It doesn't. Charters offer me a choice that I think would be better for my kid. I get why it's complicated, but it's also very, very simple.

[Anonymous]

Because charter schools in the rest of the country aren't the same as here in DC.

Yes, there are cases (like in DC) where the starting place (DCPS 20 years ago) is a true disaster for nearly everyone, AND money is not generally the problem (even at its worst, DCPS had very high per-pupil funding). And charters can be (and were!) a rising tide that lifted all boats. More families stayed (the population of school aged kids in DC has grown significantly faster than general population growth in DC since charters came to be), in general, DCPS elementary schools have been improving, poor kids have more options.

But, there are also places where charter schools are brought in with the political agenda not to save public schools but to destroy them. Michigan and Pennsylvania both come to mind. Results that are worst than the public schools they were brought in to improve. They are often for-profit and actually making money for hedge funds, which then supports politicians who support them, and the cycle continues. There's been fraud and waste, and low accountability. Plus, while most at least have to theoretically take kids from a lottery, there are LOTS of ways that charters can shape their student bodies. Think about the early days of charters in DC, when people used to camp out in front of Yu Ying to get a good timestamp for the waitlist.

So, as a very liberal person, I'm very in favor of DC's charter schools and the lottery system (though of course there could be improvements) but I am NOT in favor of charters as the silver bullet everywhere. The devil is really in the details, and in many (most?) places, the answer isn't charter schools, it's more funding.

[Anonymous]

Unions

Traditional public schools are unionized. Most charter schools aren’t. It’s in the union’s interest to oppose charter schools.

The union supports the Democratic party. Therefore, Democrats have an interest in keeping the union happy, which they do by opposing charter schools.

Most liberals are Democrats and vice versa. While individuals may differ on specific issues, the Democrats are most closely aligned with liberal positions. Even if a liberal’s primary issue has nothing to do with education, their issue will most likely benefit, when Democrats are in power, which union support facilitates.

If it were really about special ed, I think they could tackle the issue through legislation. Moreover, I don’t think public schools are the noble alternative when it comes to providing for special needs. Montgomery County (which is about as liberal as possible) has public schools that are known for calculating the relative costs of providing necessary supports for a child and comparing it to the costs of litigation if they don’t provide the necessary support and the family sues for alternative placement.

Basically, it comes down to everyone acting in their own self interest, a phenomenon which is not limited to the left. Conservatives/Republicans are just as likely to take advantage of issues to augment their power. I honestly think both parties would rather have a problem they can blame the other side for and work to their advantage, than to actually work the problem and possibly make things better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel stuck on this one because I understand the problem with charters with regards to public schools BUT I am so frustrated with our public school for things that are only minimally about demographics and are mostly about what I consider to be outdated, developmentally inappropriate rules and teaching methods. We're trying to go charter just to get away from this environment I think is not conducive to learning.

I know anti-charter people will tell me "work to change your school." But that's such a huge expectation. I have a job, we're not rich. I understand the problems with charters, but it's SO MUCH EASIER for me to find a charter that has an approach I like better and just send my kid there.

My ideal would be for my local neighborhood school to offer a better environment. It doesn't. Charters offer me a choice that I think would be better for my kid. I get why it's complicated, but it's also very, very simple.

To that I will say that sometimes Charters get wrapped up in the promotion of “their approach” and the marketing of that approach to prospective and current parents that the program is diluted.

Also OP just as conservatives don’t like to care for kids after they are out of the uterus, charter schools do not take the kids with involved special needs. Sure they take the easy cases so they can pump up the numbers of sped kids they enroll (think speech articulation IEPs or mild ADHD), but the bulk of that very very expensive therapies etc will fall to public schools that are underfunded as they are.

It is one of those things that sounds good at first (YAY my kid gets to experience ___ cool new program), but when that brought up to mass scale, it results in huge issues across the system.

[Anonymous]

I'm no expert, but as a parent of a 3YO have been thinking about this A LOT..

Isn't a problem with charters that they aren't the default?

The best case scenario is that everyone's local PS is great for all students. Then families have much less searching/lottery/etc because your local school is great and local.

But as it is, if a local PS is lacking, charters get the kids with the parents who are most motivated/have the most resources/have the most free time... parents who can handle the search and handle the logistics of your kid not going to school in the neighborhood. When those families (and their $) leave the local PS, then you're left with parents with the fewest resources/time/etc.... which leads to the PS being more lacking.

Very hard question... stressful to think about, with no perfect answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel stuck on this one because I understand the problem with charters with regards to public schools BUT I am so frustrated with our public school for things that are only minimally about demographics and are mostly about what I consider to be outdated, developmentally inappropriate rules and teaching methods. We're trying to go charter just to get away from this environment I think is not conducive to learning.

I know anti-charter people will tell me "work to change your school." But that's such a huge expectation. I have a job, we're not rich. I understand the problems with charters, but it's SO MUCH EASIER for me to find a charter that has an approach I like better and just send my kid there.

My ideal would be for my local neighborhood school to offer a better environment. It doesn't. Charters offer me a choice that I think would be better for my kid. I get why it's complicated, but it's also very, very simple.

To that I will say that sometimes Charters get wrapped up in the promotion of “their approach” and the marketing of that approach to prospective and current parents that the program is diluted.

Also OP just as conservatives don’t like to care for kids after they are out of the uterus, charter schools do not take the kids with involved special needs. Sure they take the easy cases so they can pump up the numbers of sped kids they enroll (think speech articulation IEPs or mild ADHD), but the bulk of that very very expensive therapies etc will fall to public schools that are underfunded as they are.

It is one of those things that sounds good at first (YAY my kid gets to experience ___ cool new program), but when that brought up to mass scale, it results in huge issues across the system.

This just isn't always true though. My ADHD kid got the services we asked for at a DCPS school and IEP implementation was pretty straightforward. But she's had a better experience at a charter because their approach (smaller class sizes, incorporating art and music in ways that keep DD engaged, more experiential learning and fewer worksheets, etc.). My child simply needs fewer services because she is no longer in a large class with a lot of very rigid rules, minimal art, a lot of time in seats doing worksheets or listening to teacher lecturing, so the needs she has that help her engage with school and follow the skills coaching she is getting are actually getting met.

I have not felt that the approach is just about marketing. It's very clearly believed and followed by HoS and the teachers we've interacted with. It's not some high-concept approach. It's literally just "hey what if we didn't treat children like cattle moving through the branding line, and instead sought to meet them where they are at with developmentally appropriate classrooms, schedules, and curriculum?"