Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

I’m a public school parent who supports our public schools. Cherry-picking away students and defunding public schools will only hurt public schools.

The big question is why do you want to hurt our schools?

Are you suggesting that a significant portion of parents will run from FCPS if vouchers gave them the opportunity?

Why would you assume so many people wouldn’t just apply the voucher to FCPS?

The chances of the new Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera impacting FCPS with vouchers is slim. Ms. Guidera's record as founder of DQC is one of being part of federal education coalitions that are strongly anti-voucher. Ms. Guidera's organization (DQC) has been strongly aligned with federal Democrats for years. Ms. Guidera may pay lip service to vouchers to ensure she can be selected and/or confirmed, but her past advocacy suggests she is not a real believer in vouchers.

It appears Ms. Guidera is saying what she believes Youngkin wants to hear to be nominated as opposed to what she has advocated for in the past. It's similar to how Ms. Guidera pays lip service to being parent-centered, but her past record suggests otherwise. Both personally and as the leader of DQC, Guidera was a strong advocate for stopping parents from opting out of standardized testing; she helped lead efforts to weaken federal privacy laws (e.g., FERPA) to allow more tracking of student infomration against the wishes of parents who did not want to share their child's most sensitive info; and was a strong supporter of equity initiatives.

Her boss thinks she's pro-defunding:

“Aimee will be a critical partner in restoring expectations of excellence; overseeing a record education budget to invest in teachers, facilities and special education; rolling out innovation lab and charter schools; and standing for a curriculum that prepares Virginia’s children for a dynamic future and removes politics from the classroom,” Youngkin said in a statement.

“A nationally recognized leader, Aimee is deeply respected for her distinguished career advocating for innovation and choice, data-driven reform and high standards, and will apply these principles in order to implement the Day One Game Plan,” Youngkin said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

I’m a public school parent who supports our public schools. Cherry-picking away students and defunding public schools will only hurt public schools.

The big question is why do you want to hurt our schools?

Are you suggesting that a significant portion of parents will run from FCPS if vouchers gave them the opportunity?

Why would you assume so many people wouldn’t just apply the voucher to FCPS?

The chances of the new Secretary of Education Aimee Guidera impacting FCPS with vouchers is slim. Ms. Guidera's record as founder of DQC is one of being part of federal education coalitions that are strongly anti-voucher. Ms. Guidera's organization (DQC) has been strongly aligned with federal Democrats for years. Ms. Guidera may pay lip service to vouchers to ensure she can be selected and/or confirmed, but her past advocacy suggests she is not a real believer in vouchers.

It appears Ms. Guidera is saying what she believes Youngkin wants to hear to be nominated as opposed to what she has advocated for in the past. It's similar to how Ms. Guidera pays lip service to being parent-centered, but her past record suggests otherwise. Both personally and as the leader of DQC, Guidera was a strong advocate for stopping parents from opting out of standardized testing; she helped lead efforts to weaken federal privacy laws (e.g., FERPA) to allow more tracking of student infomration against the wishes of parents who did not want to share their child's most sensitive info; and was a strong supporter of equity initiatives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

I’m a public school parent who supports our public schools. Cherry-picking away students and defunding public schools will only hurt public schools.

The big question is why do you want to hurt our schools?

Are you suggesting that a significant portion of parents will run from FCPS if vouchers gave them the opportunity?

Why would you assume so many people wouldn’t just apply the voucher to FCPS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

I’m a public school parent who supports our public schools. Cherry-picking away students and defunding public schools will only hurt public schools.

The big question is why do you want to hurt our schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

I’m a public school parent who supports our public schools. Cherry-picking away students and defunding public schools will only hurt public schools.

The big question is why do you want to hurt our schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does out of state charter mom keep telling us about the law in her state? This is about Virginia.

I assume because she has experience with both FCPS and charters in another state, and people have suggested the new Secretary of Education in Virginia will support more charter schools in Virginia?

It doesn't seem like a stretch. Why are you trying to silence other posters?

But that PP has already demonstrated that her FCPS info is outdated (literacy) and charter experience irrelevant (we already have AAP).

She’s just replying because she gets off on sharing her unhelpful opinion. Again and again. Not because it actually constructively contributes to this thread.

DP. You know AAP is not available to everyone, right? Many of us have said that the AAP curriculum should be the "normal" one, for all, and that an ACTUAL gifted program, for the very tiny minority of truly gifted students, should be implemented (again, as it used to be). The poster you're referring to has been very helpful and has contributed enormously to this thread - unlike you. You simply want to silence her.

AAP is available to everyone who qualifies.

And there won’t be unlimited seats at this theoretical, duplicate AAP charter. So it wouldn’t be available to everyone either.

Outdated and irrelevant info isn’t constructive. Even if it conveniently supports your opinion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was against charter schools. Then, I moved from FCPS to a state with public charter schools, and the charters have been fantastic. The education has been incredibly strong, and finally my kids have a school that actually challenges high achievers.

I don't see how public charter schools could be sucking the system dry. They generally receive quite a bit less money per student than the public schools, and they're still required to meet all of the public school standards.

The net result of public charters isn't significantly different from the immersion or magnet programs in FCPS. In both cases, kids are picked via a lottery, busing may not be provided, the kids are generally at or above average, and the families are involved in their kids' educations. The main difference is that the charter is getting less money per student from the state.

What you say makes logical sense (though my kids are all FCPS). The anti-charter crowd is mainly teachers who don't want their pensions/powers diluted while at the same time not having to deal with additional workloads if they are stuck with "bad" kids and money is diverted to charter schools. Let's come up with a system where the county school system competed with private schools for kids' money. I'd gladly take whatever money FCPS spends today on my child and apply that towards private school tuition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does out of state charter mom keep telling us about the law in her state? This is about Virginia.

I assume because she has experience with both FCPS and charters in another state, and people have suggested the new Secretary of Education in Virginia will support more charter schools in Virginia?

It doesn't seem like a stretch. Why are you trying to silence other posters?

But that PP has already demonstrated that her FCPS info is outdated (literacy) and charter experience irrelevant (we already have AAP).

She’s just replying because she gets off on sharing her unhelpful opinion. Again and again. Not because it actually constructively contributes to this thread.

DP. You know AAP is not available to everyone, right? Many of us have said that the AAP curriculum should be the "normal" one, for all, and that an ACTUAL gifted program, for the very tiny minority of truly gifted students, should be implemented (again, as it used to be). The poster you're referring to has been very helpful and has contributed enormously to this thread - unlike you. You simply want to silence her.