Protest Hogan's diversion of public funds from public schools into private schools

[Anonymous]

7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

What about the kids who are in public schools where those things aren't true? We just ignore them, and say we can't offer them any options because it would destroy public education. Their public education is already being destroyed.

If their public education is great, then how about all the people who are against vouchers trade places. Your kids can go to the public schools that these kids are trying to get out of, and those kids can go to your kids public schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

What about the kids who are in public schools where those things aren't true? We just ignore them, and say we can't offer them any options because it would destroy public education. Their public education is already being destroyed.

If their public education is great, then how about all the people who are against vouchers trade places. Your kids can go to the public schools that these kids are trying to get out of, and those kids can go to your kids public schools.

Who says that? This might be true if (a) the only possibility for improving education for these kids were school vouchers and (b) the school voucher program actually improved education for these kids. But in reality, neither is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

What about the kids who are in public schools where those things aren't true? We just ignore them, and say we can't offer them any options because it would destroy public education. Their public education is already being destroyed.

If their public education is great, then how about all the people who are against vouchers trade places. Your kids can go to the public schools that these kids are trying to get out of, and those kids can go to your kids public schools.

Who says that? This might be true if (a) the only possibility for improving education for these kids were school vouchers and (b) the school voucher program actually improved education for these kids. But in reality, neither is true.

+1 No one is saying to turn their backs on kids in failing schools. In fact, you would find that those of us who oppose vouchers (because they don't work) are the very same ones advocating for community schools and wrap-around services for low-income kids. The truth is that schools are failing these kids because SOCIETY is failing these kids. They don't need crappy for-profit private schools. They need a dedicated psychologist, multiple social workers, and highly trained teachers in every school. That's where you start seeing results. Not shoving them into some no-excuses for profit test factory that will continue to ignore the core issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

What about the kids who are in public schools where those things aren't true? We just ignore them, and say we can't offer them any options because it would destroy public education. Their public education is already being destroyed.

If their public education is great, then how about all the people who are against vouchers trade places. Your kids can go to the public schools that these kids are trying to get out of, and those kids can go to your kids public schools.

Who says that? This might be true if (a) the only possibility for improving education for these kids were school vouchers and (b) the school voucher program actually improved education for these kids. But in reality, neither is true.

+1 No one is saying to turn their backs on kids in failing schools. In fact, you would find that those of us who oppose vouchers (because they don't work) are the very same ones advocating for community schools and wrap-around services for low-income kids. The truth is that schools are failing these kids because SOCIETY is failing these kids. They don't need crappy for-profit private schools. They need a dedicated psychologist, multiple social workers, and highly trained teachers in every school. That's where you start seeing results. Not shoving them into some no-excuses for profit test factory that will continue to ignore the core issues.

All the things you mention: a dedicated paychologist, multiple social workes, and highly trained teachers in every school are great things that I agree vulnerable kids probably do need. I think everybody would agree that they're beneficial. However, I don't think they're core issues. I think the core issue of school is whether it provides its students with an education. Hypothetically, if a school could give each student their own psychologist, social worker, and highly trained teacher, but still didn't teach him how to read or do basic math I would say it was a "crappy school".

I agree they don't need "crappy for-profit private schools". I also don't think they they need crappy public schools. What they need are schools that produce students who are prepared for the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:7:49 sure does have a long list of conditions under which charter schools MIGHT work. If the public schools support them. If the founders are perfect. If the board is perfect. If the kids aren't too poor. If the teachers are fantastic. If they can discriminate against kids with special needs.

Well, yeah. But none of that is realistic and a move toward charters is just going to damage the prospects of those kids who end up in schools where none of those things are true.

What about the kids who are in public schools where those things aren't true? We just ignore them, and say we can't offer them any options because it would destroy public education. Their public education is already being destroyed.

If their public education is great, then how about all the people who are against vouchers trade places. Your kids can go to the public schools that these kids are trying to get out of, and those kids can go to your kids public schools.

Who says that? This might be true if (a) the only possibility for improving education for these kids were school vouchers and (b) the school voucher program actually improved education for these kids. But in reality, neither is true.

+1 No one is saying to turn their backs on kids in failing schools. In fact, you would find that those of us who oppose vouchers (because they don't work) are the very same ones advocating for community schools and wrap-around services for low-income kids. The truth is that schools are failing these kids because SOCIETY is failing these kids. They don't need crappy for-profit private schools. They need a dedicated psychologist, multiple social workers, and highly trained teachers in every school. That's where you start seeing results. Not shoving them into some no-excuses for profit test factory that will continue to ignore the core issues.

They also need buildings that aren't falling apart while the public schools in wealthier areas get the newest shiniest things.

But it doesn't matter what we say, because these kids have been in failing schools for decades. Not a couple years. This isn't new. Sure seems like we've turned our backs on these kids.

As long as my kids get to go to a functional facility with decent teachers, I'm good. I don't need to worry about the kids who are being failed a few miles away. I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the fact that their parents, who went to the same school the kids are going to, were failed. And on and on. When does the change happen, exactly? Why are these kids supposed to be content with staying in a public school system that has been failing them, by design, forever?

[Anonymous]

There have been a couple of posts on this thread which imply or even state that "wealthier" areas get more funding. I do not believe this is true.
Here is a list of funding per student in different counties in Maryland
https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-marylands-school-funding-per-student/

As you can see PGC and Baltimore City get more per student than Montgomery County.

If you are talking about schools in some parts of Montgomery County getting more than schools in other parts of Mont. County, again I do not believe this is the case
You can look at this report which shows that high FARMS schools receive more funding per student than low FARMs schools.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2015_Reports/OLOReport2015-15ResourcesAndStaffingAmongMCPSSchools.pdf
Lots of charts and data in this report. Let me highlight two numbers:
Staffing Cost per student in New Hampshire Estates Elementary (high Farms) is $10,822
Staffing cost per student in Wayside Elementary (low Farms) $5778
For what its worth, I do believe that the high FARMs schools need more funding than low FARMs schools. I am simply pointing out that this is already happening.

MCPS is likely to continue cutting budgets and this will make these kinds of debates more acrimonious as it starts to feel more like a "zero sum" situation with more funding for one group (including vouchers for private school students) coming at the expense of other groups.
Finally, I want to address some of the posts regarding the costs incurred to educate certain groups of students.
According to the above document:
Program costs for Headstart/Preschool is $17 million of which the state and federal govt picks up just $4 million
Program costs for FARMs $91 million of which the state and federal govt gave them $151 million and MCPS put the surplus funds into their general operating budget!
Program costs for ESOL is $64 million of which the state and federal govt picks up $59 million
Program costs for Special Ed/ Disabilities is $376.5 of which the state and federal govt only picks up $81 million leaving the county to fund nearly $300 million
i

[Anonymous]

All the things you mention: a dedicated paychologist, multiple social workes, and highly trained teachers in every school are great things that I agree vulnerable kids probably do need. I think everybody would agree that they're beneficial. However, I don't think they're core issues. I think the core issue of school is whether it provides its students with an education. Hypothetically, if a school could give each student their own psychologist, social worker, and highly trained teacher, but still didn't teach him how to read or do basic math I would say it was a "crappy school".

I agree they don't need "crappy for-profit private schools". I also don't think they they need crappy public schools. What they need are schools that produce students who are prepared for the future.

You can't get there with school vouchers. You just can't. They don't serve the kids getting them and they gut public education for everyone else why they are at it.

The ONLY things demonstrated to work for the highest needs kids are wraparound services that address the core roots of poverty, and school integration. That's it. A short list. The only two things that have ever worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All the things you mention: a dedicated paychologist, multiple social workes, and highly trained teachers in every school are great things that I agree vulnerable kids probably do need. I think everybody would agree that they're beneficial. However, I don't think they're core issues. I think the core issue of school is whether it provides its students with an education. Hypothetically, if a school could give each student their own psychologist, social worker, and highly trained teacher, but still didn't teach him how to read or do basic math I would say it was a "crappy school".

I agree they don't need "crappy for-profit private schools". I also don't think they they need crappy public schools. What they need are schools that produce students who are prepared for the future.

We all agree on that. But vouchers won't achieve that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There have been a couple of posts on this thread which imply or even state that "wealthier" areas get more funding. I do not believe this is true.
Here is a list of funding per student in different counties in Maryland
https://conduitstreet.mdcounties.org/2016/04/26/chart-shows-marylands-school-funding-per-student/

As you can see PGC and Baltimore City get more per student than Montgomery County.

If you are talking about schools in some parts of Montgomery County getting more than schools in other parts of Mont. County, again I do not believe this is the case
You can look at this report which shows that high FARMS schools receive more funding per student than low FARMs schools.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2015_Reports/OLOReport2015-15ResourcesAndStaffingAmongMCPSSchools.pdf
Lots of charts and data in this report. Let me highlight two numbers:
Staffing Cost per student in New Hampshire Estates Elementary (high Farms) is $10,822
Staffing cost per student in Wayside Elementary (low Farms) $5778
For what its worth, I do believe that the high FARMs schools need more funding than low FARMs schools. I am simply pointing out that this is already happening.

MCPS is likely to continue cutting budgets and this will make these kinds of debates more acrimonious as it starts to feel more like a "zero sum" situation with more funding for one group (including vouchers for private school students) coming at the expense of other groups.
Finally, I want to address some of the posts regarding the costs incurred to educate certain groups of students.
According to the above document:
Program costs for Headstart/Preschool is $17 million of which the state and federal govt picks up just $4 million
Program costs for FARMs $91 million of which the state and federal govt gave them $151 million and MCPS put the surplus funds into their general operating budget!
Program costs for ESOL is $64 million of which the state and federal govt picks up $59 million
Program costs for Special Ed/ Disabilities is $376.5 of which the state and federal govt only picks up $81 million leaving the county to fund nearly $300 million
i

Interesting to read this after seeing the President's budget proposal: 14% cut for Department of Education with less money for programs to help low income students and more money for school vouchers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you dismiss studies on grounds that they come from organizations whose philosophy you disagree with (including the Fordham Institute?) and that their results are different from your own personal experience, then there's really not much left to talk about, is there? You know what you know.

A charter COULD run well if

1) a system didn't try to sabotage it (larger systems that appear to run well on the surface)
2) the board and the system could actually see eye-to-eye, thus avoiding trapping the founders in the middle
3) the founders were in it for the right reasons

The public system will eventually implode. It's been heading into dark territory for years now, but unless you're in the system and have been working in challenging situations, you won't know the details. Ignorance is bliss and the public is for the people and we can fight for the struggling kids and we're all one, big happy family.

That's all bullshit.

So I don't care what the studies say at this point b/c there are far too many constraints placed on folks who WANT to take creative approaches - and too many in central offices willing to sabotage their efforts. The one montessori charter approved by MCPS didn't fly b/c the system wasn't willing to support the endeavor. Imagine if it HAD been successful? How would a large system like MCPS ever be able to spin bad PR on that one? So these supposedly well-run systems don't want competition.

In systems open to charters - DC, Baltimore City, PG - there are far too many issues to battle in the first place. So a charter isn't escaping the issues. Funding - or per pupil spending - is lower. Special services aren't as expansive. There are more kids living in poverty. So even IF the systems are willing to take a chance, the founders of that charter will have to be demanding in getting what they want and need for the kids. How much can a few people take?

Furthermore, not all people who are creative and innovative know how to run a school. While the curriculum framework is key, the business end is equally as important, as are safety measures.

But I do believe that if you find the right people who are experienced in different areas and who are willing to fight, a charter could indeed outshine the system.

The public system will implode - and soon. Mark my words. I still have kids in the system, and if something happens, I'll be placing them in private. That's my plan B.

This post doesn't make any sense. So Charters are better except that circumstances don't allow them to be better?

[Anonymous]

bump

[Anonymous]

Larry Hogan is a pig.

[Anonymous]

bump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you dismiss studies on grounds that they come from organizations whose philosophy you disagree with (including the Fordham Institute?) and that their results are different from your own personal experience, then there's really not much left to talk about, is there? You know what you know.

A charter COULD run well if

1) a system didn't try to sabotage it (larger systems that appear to run well on the surface)
2) the board and the system could actually see eye-to-eye, thus avoiding trapping the founders in the middle
3) the founders were in it for the right reasons

The public system will eventually implode. It's been heading into dark territory for years now, but unless you're in the system and have been working in challenging situations, you won't know the details. Ignorance is bliss and the public is for the people and we can fight for the struggling kids and we're all one, big happy family.

That's all bullshit.

So I don't care what the studies say at this point b/c there are far too many constraints placed on folks who WANT to take creative approaches - and too many in central offices willing to sabotage their efforts. The one montessori charter approved by MCPS didn't fly b/c the system wasn't willing to support the endeavor. Imagine if it HAD been successful? How would a large system like MCPS ever be able to spin bad PR on that one? So these supposedly well-run systems don't want competition.

In systems open to charters - DC, Baltimore City, PG - there are far too many issues to battle in the first place. So a charter isn't escaping the issues. Funding - or per pupil spending - is lower. Special services aren't as expansive. There are more kids living in poverty. So even IF the systems are willing to take a chance, the founders of that charter will have to be demanding in getting what they want and need for the kids. How much can a few people take?

Furthermore, not all people who are creative and innovative know how to run a school. While the curriculum framework is key, the business end is equally as important, as are safety measures.

But I do believe that if you find the right people who are experienced in different areas and who are willing to fight, a charter could indeed outshine the system.

The public system will implode - and soon. Mark my words. I still have kids in the system, and if something happens, I'll be placing them in private. That's my plan B.

This post doesn't make any sense. So Charters are better except that circumstances don't allow them to be better?