Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll add that in FCPS alone, almost 20% of the budget is spent on Special Education, and of that most of it isn’t spent on kids like your child.

We pool resources to care for the neediest kids. Charter schools take away from that.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
-FDR

We don’t pool those resources enough. I’d like all the FARMs kids to go to their own school that can provide wrap-around services (including after school childcare & housing nearby), and the special education kids to also go to their own school.

Bright middle class kids are mostly ignored in traditional public schools.

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?

Anonymous wrote:In theory, I think charter schools are fine. My understanding is that they were originally justified as places to test experimental ideas to see whether they would work before used in larger settings, or to use a different approach with traditionally more challenging populations who were not being served well in typical public schools.

In practice what I see happening:
1) Truly needy low income kids cannot go because charters are exempt from providing transportation or F/RL.
2) SPED services are almost always inadequate
3) Charter schools can 'expel' or push out kids who they don't want. They then get to keep the $$ from those kids while the public school is stuck picking up the pieces with no funding for that student for that school year
4) for profit schools...
5) UMC people use certain charters as de facto privates when they don't feel like paying for actual private school and don't like their public option; there's no incentive to improve the existing public schools while also taking funding away (which wouldn't happen if these people just went with privates)

Anonymous wrote:I’ll add that in FCPS alone, almost 20% of the budget is spent on Special Education, and of that most of it isn’t spent on kids like your child.

We pool resources to care for the neediest kids. Charter schools take away from that.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
-FDR

Anonymous wrote:

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?"

Anonymous wrote: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 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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

and the same research also shows that charters greatly underperform the public

Anonymous wrote: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 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?