Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington has many different schools and no charters. They all fall under one school system though and have oversight and shared resources. Charter schools are very inefficient and have the tendency to be uneven. As part of no child left behind, unfailing school requires children to have the option of attending a different school. With this in place, I don't see the need for charters and I don't understand how legally we can allow public money be spent towards religious schools in a country that separates religion from government.

Perhaps the possibility of charters will lead APS to gets its act together and address the low performance of so many schools in South Arlington. But, knowing APS, they'll just assume charters will be part of the solution to their overcrowding crisis, and do nothing.

There is only one pie. I can't imagine APS sharing any piece of it.

Anonymous wrote:Arlington has many different schools and no charters. They all fall under one school system though and have oversight and shared resources. Charter schools are very inefficient and have the tendency to be uneven. As part of no child left behind, unfailing school requires children to have the option of attending a different school. With this in place, I don't see the need for charters and I don't understand how legally we can allow public money be spent towards religious schools in a country that separates religion from government.

Perhaps the possibility of charters will lead APS to gets its act together and address the low performance of so many schools in South Arlington. But, knowing APS, they'll just assume charters will be part of the solution to their overcrowding crisis, and do nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I agree about 90 percent with the previous post, the fact is where I live -- Baltimore City -- it feels like anyone offering choices and alternatives is a godsend. Not all the charters are good. But the fact is that the "opportunity" offered by some of the neighborhood schools isn't exactly what I'd write a national anthem about. I am very appreciative for what the staff in these schools is trying to do, but I don't blame people one second for trying to find alternatives.

I like the idea of charters, provided there is sufficient oversight.

You're in Baltimore City.

Well, yes. But there are plenty of places like Baltimore. Why base a nationnwide policy position on a subset of schools?

If you want to see how DeVos's policies work out for a place like Baltimore City, look at Detroit Public Schools. They have been under emergency manager leadership since 2009 are are significantly worse than when the GOP took over the schools. DPS has been forced to pay out millions to private contractors but the schools continue to fail, even as charters suck resources and kids out of the system.

Detroit was the DeVos testing ground, and they've allowed the schools to degrade to the point that teachers staged a walk out last year over black mold, raw sewage in the halls, and an unsafe work environment.

No one should kid themselves that "school choice" is going to be good for poor kids. It's going to make things substantially worse.

Anonymous wrote:Arlington has many different schools and no charters. They all fall under one school system though and have oversight and shared resources. Charter schools are very inefficient and have the tendency to be uneven. As part of no child left behind, unfailing school requires children to have the option of attending a different school. With this in place, I don't see the need for charters and I don't understand how legally we can allow public money be spent towards religious schools in a country that separates religion from government.

They aren't all religious. My family is zoned to an underperforming school in APS. I will be working to push for Charters in Arlington.

Arlington has many different schools and no charters. They all fall under one school system though and have oversight and shared resources. Charter schools are very inefficient and have the tendency to be uneven. As part of no child left behind, unfailing school requires children to have the option of attending a different school. With this in place, I don't see the need for charters and I don't understand how legally we can allow public money be spent towards religious schools in a country that separates religion from government.

Anonymous wrote:While I agree about 90 percent with the previous post, the fact is where I live -- Baltimore City -- it feels like anyone offering choices and alternatives is a godsend. Not all the charters are good. But the fact is that the "opportunity" offered by some of the neighborhood schools isn't exactly what I'd write a national anthem about. I am very appreciative for what the staff in these schools is trying to do, but I don't blame people one second for trying to find alternatives.

I like the idea of charters, provided there is sufficient oversight.

+1! As an Anacostia resident who cannot simply move for good schools, I'm not buying some of the dogma against school choice. It's easy to remain a purist when your zoned schools are decent or better. Our neighborhood elementary has a 25% proficient or better rate on the annual exams and was just in the news because a 3yo arrived to school with a loaded pistol in his backpack. Our HS option has about 50% of students graduating on time. Charter schools were such a blessing.

I attended a mediocre MS in DCPS myself and fortunately made it into a top HS. I was behind, however, and failed the math entrance exam, but the principal was impressed with my interview and gave me a chance. Kids today won't have that luxury as the competition is steep for slots. I'm a Dem, but this is one of the few issues where I'm mostly in agreement with conservatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support school choice because charter schools, for the most part, are not unionized. Fewer union paying suckers equals fewer dollars to their buddies at the top of the AFT and fewer dollars to their re-election campaign.

oh - but kids first, of course!

Check your privilege. Most teachers work very hard for modest salaries.

How's that union working for ya?

Anonymous wrote:Or put another way: It's really easy to tell everyone to suck it up and support their neighborhood public when you are zoned for an excellent school.

The picture changes when the school has a lot of problems, or doesn't offer the type of instruction you prefer, or serves a particular student poorly.

Charters have improved DC public schools -- but is it the charters that are improving the school district or the changing demographics of the city? Would charters alone fix DC schools, without more? It seems unlikely to me. It's possible that the success of charters in improving DC schools is the result of improving DC schools rather than the cause.

Or put another way: It's really easy to tell everyone to suck it up and support their neighborhood public when you are zoned for an excellent school.

The picture changes when the school has a lot of problems, or doesn't offer the type of instruction you prefer, or serves a particular student poorly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I agree about 90 percent with the previous post, the fact is where I live -- Baltimore City -- it feels like anyone offering choices and alternatives is a godsend. Not all the charters are good. But the fact is that the "opportunity" offered by some of the neighborhood schools isn't exactly what I'd write a national anthem about. I am very appreciative for what the staff in these schools is trying to do, but I don't blame people one second for trying to find alternatives.

I like the idea of charters, provided there is sufficient oversight.

You're in Baltimore City.

Well, yes. But there are plenty of places like Baltimore. Why base a nationnwide policy position on a subset of schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't support school choice because they want to keep funding in the public school systems. Many argue that charter schools are not better quality, they are just free to cream skim the best students and get rid of the bad ones. Republicans support school choice because they don't care if public education collapsed at all.

I believe whether you have children in the system or not, a large portion of your taxes are in the school system still. It is not like FCPS doesn't have a funding problem.

I doubt either MCPS or FCPS will have charters soon. Let alone vouchers. Party because they are still considered good school system.

It won't really eliminate overcrowding because charter schools will take some of the funding away. Remember they are privately run publicly funded. So few new schools can be built or renovated with FCPS.

Uneducated a bit?

Republicans support school choice because UNIONS make it terribly expensive and difficult to get rid of bad and/or ineffective teachers. Haven't you heard of the RUBBER ROOMS in NYC? Unions only have the union's leadership in their best interest - not the students', as they like to claim.

There are no teacher Unions in Virginia. They are only membership organizations.

Why do so many people not know, or fail to recognize this?

Anonymous wrote:While I agree about 90 percent with the previous post, the fact is where I live -- Baltimore City -- it feels like anyone offering choices and alternatives is a godsend. Not all the charters are good. But the fact is that the "opportunity" offered by some of the neighborhood schools isn't exactly what I'd write a national anthem about. I am very appreciative for what the staff in these schools is trying to do, but I don't blame people one second for trying to find alternatives.

I like the idea of charters, provided there is sufficient oversight.

You're in Baltimore City.

While I agree about 90 percent with the previous post, the fact is where I live -- Baltimore City -- it feels like anyone offering choices and alternatives is a godsend. Not all the charters are good. But the fact is that the "opportunity" offered by some of the neighborhood schools isn't exactly what I'd write a national anthem about. I am very appreciative for what the staff in these schools is trying to do, but I don't blame people one second for trying to find alternatives.

I like the idea of charters, provided there is sufficient oversight.

School Choice is a buzz word for Charters. Charters are an alternative to the public school model. Charters are operated by outside groups with unknown motives, sometimes for profit. A proliferation of Charters would mean a weakening of the public school model, resources lessened for public schools and an acceptance of "what-ever" as curriculum. Public school - done for the public good and supported and nurtured by the public, and answerable to the public provides a very important commonality for our nation, any nation. We lose a lot of cohesiveness without it. Private education exists for those who want it. Changing public schools to a private school model goes against a fundamental value our nation was built on, equal opportunity - meaning equal access, providing all with a similar beginning. It's the "big picture". That's what fuels the passion against it. There may not be as much passion against the issue when discussing anecdotal minutia on a very local level.

Republicans also favor school choice because it's a way to get public money to support religious institutions, as the vast majority of private schools are religious.