Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame her partly. She's against public education and doesn't support funding it.

I think this is because she sees the failures in the inner cities. Not sure she has the solution, but I do think she sees the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I blame her partly. She's against public education and doesn't support funding it.

I think this is because she sees the failures in the inner cities. Not sure she has the solution, but I do think she sees the problem.

Anonymous wrote:I blame her partly. She's against public education and doesn't support funding it.

Anonymous wrote:

So, if anyone would like a visual of the "weaker" Michigan public schools, years after they began to be underfunded due to billionaire DeVos' educational brand, here are some photos taken earlier this year from schools in Detroit and Flint.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/detroit-teachers-want-you-to-see-these-disturbing-photos/

"Supply would catch up to demand..." RIGHT. What private school or charter company is going to want to take over that old building? Kids will still be there and it will be a blight for years until it is razed by the city.

And, you blame DeVos for this? Have you been to Detroit lately?

So, if anyone would like a visual of the "weaker" Michigan public schools, years after they began to be underfunded due to billionaire DeVos' educational brand, here are some photos taken earlier this year from schools in Detroit and Flint.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/detroit-teachers-want-you-to-see-these-disturbing-photos/

"Supply would catch up to demand..." RIGHT. What private school or charter company is going to want to take over that old building? Kids will still be there and it will be a blight for years until it is razed by the city.

Anonymous wrote:OP - please do some research on this issue. Republicans don't support school choice because they are evil, or profit hungry. Philosophically, they believe that competition makes people work harder and institutions stronger. They also believe that more money doesn't necessarily result in improved performance. Finally, they tend to favor individual freedom, so feel that parents (given their strong self interest) could make the most appropriate educational choices for their children.

So, here is the vision: give each child a voucher for the value of per pupil funding (debates about how much this should be). Parents can use the voucher to choose the educational setting they prefer. If there is a flood of people out of a given (failed) public school, that school must either improve, offer innovative programs or close. Initially, there would probably be a shortage of spots in private schools, as many would have the option of choosing them for the first time, but supply would catch up to demand.

Many Democrats recognize that there would be some losers in this scenario. Most important would be children whose parents pay no attention to the quality of education. They would be left in the presumably poor public schools, now made "weaker". However, the schools remaining could consolidate and focus directly on the needs of these kids. It depends on the per pupil allotment which could be different based on the needs of the child. Empty public schools would probably be leased to private or charter schools. The other losers would be poor public school teachers, whose positions might be eliminated and who would not be competitive for new private and charter school jobs.

The argument that charter and private schools are not accountable is a joke. These schools would be directly accountable to parents. There are many public schools that are failing and which are totally unaccountable to their customers - kids and parents. The voters have some very indirect method of expressing their displeasure by voting out the school board, but that is it.

3. Why do republicans support choice for schools and democrats do not?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

APS offers choices already and many south Arlington families use them. A large proportion of Arlington children already attend private school as well. I have never heard a good explanation of how competition from private charters will "help" solve the problems of high levels of child poverty, high proportions of children who do not start school speaking English, significant special education populations, and frequent student turnover. Arlington puts disproportionate resources into schools with students with higher needs, well beyond what any charter funding formula could sustain. I have looked for more information on how charters really help -- DC, with its high charter enrollment is a great example -- but private schools do not seem to be better at educating high need children and mathematically I don't see how removing average per student spending from the system will help (when in reality there are two or three low cost students and one high need student who "average" out to the reported per pupil cost--take out the easy students and the average spending and you are way overpaying.)

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.