Why are liberals so against charter schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read all replies yet, but once public funds are used for charter schools, we're only a hop, skip and jump away from right-wing zealots diverting public funds to religious schools.

In fact, it's already happening:

Even as public schools across the country continue to grapple with budget shortfalls and misleading attacks from right-wing agitators over classroom lesson plans, the Supreme Court has moved to further undermine public education by opening the door for states to divert more public tuition dollars to private religious schools.

The Court’s 6-3 decision in Carson v. Makin, issued on June 21, further breaches the separation between church and state by requiring states to fund private religious schools if they fund any other private schools, even if those religious schools would use public funds for religious instruction and worship.

Every student in America deserves to attend a great public school, but the Court’s decision to allow tax dollars to be diverted from public education to religious education only makes it more difficult for all students—no matter their race, zip code, or background—to receive the quality education that they deserve.

“Forcing American taxpayers to fund private religious education—even when those private schools fail to meet education standards, intentionally discriminate against students, or use public funds to promote religious training, worship, and instruction—erodes the foundation of our democracy and harms students,” NEA President Becky Pringle said.

Sadly, the Court pursued an unpopular, extreme agenda this past term that has also upended states’ ability to regulate firearms and limited women's rights over their own reproductive health care decisions. Taken together, the most extremist Court in modern history is eroding some of the most basic social commitments of our society in order to serve partisan interests.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/supreme-court-decision-paves-way-public-funds-flow-religious-schools


There are religious schools in the South that will not teach science in any meaningful way, i.e., origin of the universe is replaced with creationism and how to defend that stance. Challenging authority of the white Christian patriarchal structure is not allowed. Ask me how I know.

Do we really want to continue feeding into and/or expanding that portion of our electorate that seems wholly lacking in critical thinking skills and hell bent on marching toward authoritarianism?

Do they allow government funding of research at Notre Dame, Georgetown, or other religious schools? Student loans?

Not PP: That’s by no means the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Why not? If you are against charter schools because the money can go to religious schools, then you should be against these as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not? If you are against charter schools because the money can go to religious schools, then you should be against these as well.

DP- but can you explain how research, which has empirical guidelines and that can benefit society/discover new information as a whole should have the same funding guidelines as religious training/education which has no empirical guides and in fact is based on religion. The guidelines in receiving funding grants is based upon using the SCIENTIFIC method which is agreed upon as empirical evidence and doesn’t involve religion.

A religious school is teaching religion which brings the separation of church and state into question.

Explain how those are the same to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Charter schools are not an ideal solution to improving educational for K-12. But, in DC, the way that charters have been implemented, it has improved educational options for many students (about half of DC public school students attend charters) and helped improve many public ES by keeping MC/UMC families in the city, who now are more willing to give their local ES a try.

The way DC’s charters are managed, it has helped to reduce some (not all) or the corruption at charters seen in other states. The management includes:
1)Requiring all charters to be non-profits (which comes with required public reporting of financials)
2)Review of each school by the public charter school board (reports and assessments also made publicly available). In DC, the public charter school board is also reviewed every 5 years by the GAO (www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105226)
3) The move to a true lottery system that allows any family equal shot at a spot (although yes, it does require an involved parent with access to the internet to enter the lottery and parent’s ability to transport the child to the school if they get a spot)


Ideally DC would use its vast budget to actually improve dc public schools and/or provide more necessary wrap-around services needed to better support at-risk and lower performing students. However, in previous years when DC had ample budget it has continued NOT to make any impactful changes. In the mean time, charter schools have given 50% of kids an educational option that they feel is better than their local public school. Not all charters are great, but clearly something is wrong with many of the DC public schools if 50% of the students choose to go elsewhere. The more I learn about and experience the DC school system, the more I am beginning to believe that there are systemic issues with the management of the school system, rather than lack of funding (at least in the past 10 years).

Charters, as implemented in DC, have improved things (at least marginally). However, in other states with the lack of oversight and in cases of voucher systems, etc. where the option is not equitably open to all students (I.e. parochial/private schools can pick and choose students), charters (and voucher programs) seem like an easy opportunity to increase segregation and allow government funds to be misused without improving the educational opportunities for any significant number of students.

Now that budgets are tightening in DC, I don’t see any improvements to public schools likely to be made, and charters continue to make DC more palatable to families who would otherwise move to MD or VA.

While I don't know much about charters in DC I agree with most of this, sometimes charters are good, but I think they more often are plagued with issues and poor management while also pulling funds from public schools. I do feel a bit hypocritical though, because I am a public school teacher who sends their child to an "option school" which is it's own type of pulling from neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charter schools are not an ideal solution to improving educational for K-12. But, in DC, the way that charters have been implemented, it has improved educational options for many students (about half of DC public school students attend charters) and helped improve many public ES by keeping MC/UMC families in the city, who now are more willing to give their local ES a try.

The way DC’s charters are managed, it has helped to reduce some (not all) or the corruption at charters seen in other states. The management includes:
1)Requiring all charters to be non-profits (which comes with required public reporting of financials)
2)Review of each school by the public charter school board (reports and assessments also made publicly available). In DC, the public charter school board is also reviewed every 5 years by the GAO (www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105226)
3) The move to a true lottery system that allows any family equal shot at a spot (although yes, it does require an involved parent with access to the internet to enter the lottery and parent’s ability to transport the child to the school if they get a spot)


Ideally DC would use its vast budget to actually improve dc public schools and/or provide more necessary wrap-around services needed to better support at-risk and lower performing students. However, in previous years when DC had ample budget it has continued NOT to make any impactful changes. In the mean time, charter schools have given 50% of kids an educational option that they feel is better than their local public school. Not all charters are great, but clearly something is wrong with many of the DC public schools if 50% of the students choose to go elsewhere. The more I learn about and experience the DC school system, the more I am beginning to believe that there are systemic issues with the management of the school system, rather than lack of funding (at least in the past 10 years).

Charters, as implemented in DC, have improved things (at least marginally). However, in other states with the lack of oversight and in cases of voucher systems, etc. where the option is not equitably open to all students (I.e. parochial/private schools can pick and choose students), charters (and voucher programs) seem like an easy opportunity to increase segregation and allow government funds to be misused without improving the educational opportunities for any significant number of students.

Now that budgets are tightening in DC, I don’t see any improvements to public schools likely to be made, and charters continue to make DC more palatable to families who would otherwise move to MD or VA.

While I don't know much about charters in DC I agree with most of this, sometimes charters are good, but I think they more often are plagued with issues and poor management while also pulling funds from public schools. I do feel a bit hypocritical though, because I am a public school teacher who sends their child to an "option school" which is it's own type of pulling from neighborhood schools.

I send my child to a similar school and I make no excuses for it. These kinds of schools are real public schools, as opposed to charters which are not.

[Anonymous]

People need to know the totality of what they’re demanding and advocating for.

The increase of charter schools is part of the agenda and trend of privatization of what is supposed to be a public good.

It’s sad that people can’t see the bigger picture.

[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.

The bolded part. In the state where I'm from, the charters are not required to educate special needs kids, and some of their leaders have said that the reason they started the charters were because public schools spend too many resources on special needs kids. It's appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charter schools are not an ideal solution to improving educational for K-12. But, in DC, the way that charters have been implemented, it has improved educational options for many students (about half of DC public school students attend charters) and helped improve many public ES by keeping MC/UMC families in the city, who now are more willing to give their local ES a try.

The way DC’s charters are managed, it has helped to reduce some (not all) or the corruption at charters seen in other states. The management includes:
1)Requiring all charters to be non-profits (which comes with required public reporting of financials)
2)Review of each school by the public charter school board (reports and assessments also made publicly available). In DC, the public charter school board is also reviewed every 5 years by the GAO (www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105226)
3) The move to a true lottery system that allows any family equal shot at a spot (although yes, it does require an involved parent with access to the internet to enter the lottery and parent’s ability to transport the child to the school if they get a spot)


Ideally DC would use its vast budget to actually improve dc public schools and/or provide more necessary wrap-around services needed to better support at-risk and lower performing students. However, in previous years when DC had ample budget it has continued NOT to make any impactful changes. In the mean time, charter schools have given 50% of kids an educational option that they feel is better than their local public school. Not all charters are great, but clearly something is wrong with many of the DC public schools if 50% of the students choose to go elsewhere. The more I learn about and experience the DC school system, the more I am beginning to believe that there are systemic issues with the management of the school system, rather than lack of funding (at least in the past 10 years).

Charters, as implemented in DC, have improved things (at least marginally). However, in other states with the lack of oversight and in cases of voucher systems, etc. where the option is not equitably open to all students (I.e. parochial/private schools can pick and choose students), charters (and voucher programs) seem like an easy opportunity to increase segregation and allow government funds to be misused without improving the educational opportunities for any significant number of students.

Now that budgets are tightening in DC, I don’t see any improvements to public schools likely to be made, and charters continue to make DC more palatable to families who would otherwise move to MD or VA.

While I don't know much about charters in DC I agree with most of this, sometimes charters are good, but I think they more often are plagued with issues and poor management while also pulling funds from public schools. I do feel a bit hypocritical though, because I am a public school teacher who sends their child to an "option school" which is it's own type of pulling from neighborhood schools.

I send my child to a similar school and I make no excuses for it. These kinds of schools are real public schools, as opposed to charters which are not.

In DC, the charters are public schools. Same thing as the "option schools" you guys are talking about.

[Anonymous]

The point of charter schools is to discriminate. It is why they exist. They may also make money, but they exist only for the purpose of discrimination.

Sometimes it is racial discrimination. Mostly it is discrimination against physically and mentally handicapped kids.

The ones into it for the money are often simple to see. They don’t offer high school. High school education is expensive. Grade schools are the “profit centers”.

Obviously charters almost never - and I mean actually never but I can’t say there are not 1 or 2 in the country that focus on providing education to physically and mentally handicapped students. Handicapped kids are very expensive to educate. God bless the schools and districts that work hard to provide as good as education as possible for those kids. It might easily be $150K a kid.

My approach would be easy: if a charter school wants public funding then they must either educate the same proportionate share of the kids with handicaps and learning disabilities as the traditional public schools in the same geographic area the charter school is located, or the charter school must pay the offsetting cost to the public school district that is educating those kids. So, for example, let’s say a charter school is located in school district “A”. And, let’s say the public high school serving in area “A” has 25% of its students qualifying in some way under IDEA. While the our hypothetical charter has 5% of its students qualifying under IDEA. Add up the direct non-federally reimbursed costs incurred by each school, and have the one pay the other 50% of the expense. Kids get needed services. Costs are appropriately shared. Obviously if the charter school takes on more handicapped kids they pay out less money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of charter schools is to discriminate. It is why they exist. They may also make money, but they exist only for the purpose of discrimination.

Sometimes it is racial discrimination. Mostly it is discrimination against physically and mentally handicapped kids.

The ones into it for the money are often simple to see. They don’t offer high school. High school education is expensive. Grade schools are the “profit centers”.

Obviously charters almost never - and I mean actually never but I can’t say there are not 1 or 2 in the country that focus on providing education to physically and mentally handicapped students. Handicapped kids are very expensive to educate. God bless the schools and districts that work hard to provide as good as education as possible for those kids. It might easily be $150K a kid.

My approach would be easy: if a charter school wants public funding then they must either educate the same proportionate share of the kids with handicaps and learning disabilities as the traditional public schools in the same geographic area the charter school is located, or the charter school must pay the offsetting cost to the public school district that is educating those kids. So, for example, let’s say a charter school is located in school district “A”. And, let’s say the public high school serving in area “A” has 25% of its students qualifying in some way under IDEA. While the our hypothetical charter has 5% of its students qualifying under IDEA. Add up the direct non-federally reimbursed costs incurred by each school, and have the one pay the other 50% of the expense. Kids get needed services. Costs are appropriately shared. Obviously if the charter school takes on more handicapped kids they pay out less money.

Because this gets discussed ad infinitum in DC: The charters actually have a very slightly higher percentage of level 4 IEPs than the public schools. Charter students are also more likely to be Black than non-charter public students.

https://myteacher.dc.gov/page/about-dc-public-education#:~:text=Charter%20Students%3A,students%20are%20Asian%2FMultiracial%2Fother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

A better question might be, why do conservatives hate public education?

x100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point of charter schools is to discriminate. It is why they exist. They may also make money, but they exist only for the purpose of discrimination.

Sometimes it is racial discrimination. Mostly it is discrimination against physically and mentally handicapped kids.

The ones into it for the money are often simple to see. They don’t offer high school. High school education is expensive. Grade schools are the “profit centers”.

Obviously charters almost never - and I mean actually never but I can’t say there are not 1 or 2 in the country that focus on providing education to physically and mentally handicapped students. Handicapped kids are very expensive to educate. God bless the schools and districts that work hard to provide as good as education as possible for those kids. It might easily be $150K a kid.

My approach would be easy: if a charter school wants public funding then they must either educate the same proportionate share of the kids with handicaps and learning disabilities as the traditional public schools in the same geographic area the charter school is located, or the charter school must pay the offsetting cost to the public school district that is educating those kids. So, for example, let’s say a charter school is located in school district “A”. And, let’s say the public high school serving in area “A” has 25% of its students qualifying in some way under IDEA. While the our hypothetical charter has 5% of its students qualifying under IDEA. Add up the direct non-federally reimbursed costs incurred by each school, and have the one pay the other 50% of the expense. Kids get needed services. Costs are appropriately shared. Obviously if the charter school takes on more handicapped kids they pay out less money.

Because this gets discussed ad infinitum in DC: The charters actually have a very slightly higher percentage of level 4 IEPs than the public schools. Charter students are also more likely to be Black than non-charter public students.

https://myteacher.dc.gov/page/about-dc-public-education#:~:text=Charter%20Students%3A,students%20are%20Asian%2FMultiracial%2Fother

Great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point of charter schools is to discriminate. It is why they exist. They may also make money, but they exist only for the purpose of discrimination.

Sometimes it is racial discrimination. Mostly it is discrimination against physically and mentally handicapped kids.

The ones into it for the money are often simple to see. They don’t offer high school. High school education is expensive. Grade schools are the “profit centers”.

Obviously charters almost never - and I mean actually never but I can’t say there are not 1 or 2 in the country that focus on providing education to physically and mentally handicapped students. Handicapped kids are very expensive to educate. God bless the schools and districts that work hard to provide as good as education as possible for those kids. It might easily be $150K a kid.

My approach would be easy: if a charter school wants public funding then they must either educate the same proportionate share of the kids with handicaps and learning disabilities as the traditional public schools in the same geographic area the charter school is located, or the charter school must pay the offsetting cost to the public school district that is educating those kids. So, for example, let’s say a charter school is located in school district “A”. And, let’s say the public high school serving in area “A” has 25% of its students qualifying in some way under IDEA. While the our hypothetical charter has 5% of its students qualifying under IDEA. Add up the direct non-federally reimbursed costs incurred by each school, and have the one pay the other 50% of the expense. Kids get needed services. Costs are appropriately shared. Obviously if the charter school takes on more handicapped kids they pay out less money.

Good solution

[Anonymous]

some more data about DC:
https://dcpcsb.org/dc-public-charter-schools-serve-higher-percentages-risk-students-and-high-needs-special-education

"While DCPS serves a slightly higher percentage of students with disabilities than pubic charter schools, it often surprises people to learn that public charter schools serve a higher percentages of students with disabilities who require the most hours of supports. All special education students in DC are classified as level one through four, with level four students requiring the most intensive hours of supports. Many level four special education students, for example, have a dedicated aide with them during the entire school day.

The table below shows the number of special education students, by level, at public charter school and DCPS schools. As can be seen, 4.6% of public charter schools students are level 3 and level 4 special education compared with 4.1% at DCPS. 109 (91%) of the public charter schools served level 3 and level 4 special education students in 2017-18."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to know the totality of what they’re demanding and advocating for.

The increase of charter schools is part of the agenda and trend of privatization of what is supposed to be a public good.

It’s sad that people can’t see the bigger picture.

But never in practice has that worked out to the publics benefit. Just a way for some to line their pockets at the public's expense.