Charter Schools

[LadyShea]

Alabama is having a big ole fight about charter schools. One side wants to enact charter school legislation to make us more competitive for Race to the Top (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html) funds, the other side doesn't want them, period. Their ad campaign (http://nocharterschoolsalabama.org/)appeals to the widespread attitude that the big leftist government wants to take away our freedoms. I was confused that they bought TV time, since as far as I can tell this will not be a ballot issue. I assume they want people to contact the legislators and urge them to vote no.

A bill already failed about a month ago, but two more were right behind it. Basically both sides wantz money, I am pretty sure.

So at first-because I think our PS system sucks, and because it objectively sucks according to various stats, and because badly needed Federal funding is at stake- I thought charter schools were a good idea for Alabama. It's something different, possibly progressive, and definitely more flexible so changes can be made and experimentation done to see what works best.

Then some guy in Mississippi, who is having the same fight I think, said "If charter schools work, why not implement the freedoms and flexibility of charter schools into the public schools?" And you know what? That redneck made sense. Why put public funds into a parallel system instead of just making the existing system work?

I don't know enough about charter schools to grasp all of this. I assumed they were mostly special focus and no different than magnet schools (which we do have); like math and science heavy, or performing arts, or alternative schools for students at risk or whatever.

Thoughts?

[Qingdai]

Publically funded charter schools to take away money from public schools, is one objection.
At the same time they don't have to meet the standards of public schools, such as the qualifications for teachers, which can be very bad or good. For example, the teacher could not have basic training or, as in the case of my friend with a degree in biochemistry, in order for her to become a teacher they wanted her to go back and either get a degree in chemistry or biologybecause they didn't recognize that degree as being qualified to teach high school science.
In a perfect world, a public school would be able to teach methods and classes that are of interest to the parents and teachers. We have publically funded charter schools that have science based curriculum, Montessori, Waldorf and some that are high school level classes that are supposed to be an alternative to the now closed trades high schools, that taught skills such as mechanics, drafting and horticulture.

Charter schools seem to be chiseling away at school funding leaving children with less commited parents in dysfunctional schools.
I have very mixed feelings about charter schools in that I'd prefer every child to have a good public school in their neighborhood. Now that I am in a neighborhood with a poorly performing public school (and I still don't know if how they evaluate performance is worth the paper they test on), I am some what comforted that if this school really doesn't work out, there is an option that doesn't cost a lot of money (such as private school).

[LadyShea]

Publically funded charter schools to take away money from public schools, is one objection.
At the same time they don't have to meet the standards of public schools, such as the qualifications for teachers, which can be very bad or good.

And that's where one of my main questions comes in. If the standards are causing problems, why not change the requirements/standards for the whole system, rather than funding a separate system that runs with different requirements? See what I am saying? If charter schools work well due to A, B, and C, why not make A, B, and C part of the public school system?


For example, the teacher could not have basic training or, as in the case of my friend with a degree in biochemistry, in order for her to become a teacher they wanted her to go back and either get a degree in chemistry or biology because they didn't recognize that degree as being qualified to teach high school science.

And that's a perfect example of my WTFitude. If an arbitrary standard is stupid like that (that the degree is problematic, not the knowledge or skills), why not change the standard instead of having a whole second facility with a different standard?

Makes no sense to me.

Charter schools seem to be chiseling away at school funding leaving children with less commited parents in dysfunctional schools.

So again, why divert the funds instead of making changes?

If in my business, policy X is not working, I am going to change the policy, not open a new business with a different policy.

[Qingdai]

I can only guess is that the reason is that there is an abiding interest in making sure that some children have opportunities and other children do not.

I don't think the standards for teachers are necessarily causing problems, the mess of paperwork, under-funding, lack of resources and bureaucracy drives teachers away from teaching. Not so much the qualifications of having a degree in teaching or early education. That is ancedotal, but I've heard it more than once from former public school teachers.

There was a charter school here, for high school aged kids, that was supposed to teach "leadership" I talked to one student there who said they basically went out and got jobs, then (maybe) wrote reports about that. Sounds a lot like a program we had in high school called, "dropping out." I don't know what or if there is any over sight on a charter school program like that, but the student certainly felt it was a waste of a year of her high school education.

[just me]

I don't have much to say on the topic of charter schools other than be careful what you wish for. In theory a charter school can lead the way in finding solutions to problems plaguing the public system, but there is no guarantee.

One charter school I became familiar with was a real shock to me. I walked into the school as I had volunteered as a field trip chaperon at the urging of a friend. Upon walking in the front door I was greeted by a Jesus loves you type banner. I found this shocking because it was my understanding that public schools were supposed to stay away from anything that even looked like an endorsement of a particular religion.

My friend then explained it was a tax payer funded school, but not a 'public school', but a charter school and they were not held to the same standards/regulations.

So, in this case the charter school became a defacto, public funded religious school.

[LadyShea]

I am not really wishing for anything...and neither is the state. The only reason they are even looking at charter schools is the Race to the Top fund.

I am personally simply trying to understand why they would fund such schools instead of making policy changes at the regular public schools. I just don't get it at all.

I do understand schools with a specific focus...however those can be done as magnets.

[Qingdai]

I agree. I'd much rather see magnets than charter schools.

I'm still wading through the maze of public school information and politics (which is changing again in Portland, they want to close some schools, make more magnets and make it harder to transfer schools, unless it's to a magnet school).
Who knows what that'll look like in 10 years when my kid is high school age?

We already closed a bunch of middle schools and crammed those students into elementary schools, and that was a disaster, as promised electives (like PE and music) were never delivered.

[JoeP]

Why put public funds into a parallel system instead of just making the existing system work?

Is it fundamentally that (some people believe that) the existing system cannot be made to work?

That because of conflicting requirements (possibly), or entrenched bureaucracy, or teaching unions it's been impossible to implement anything more flexible?

[LadyShea]

That because of conflicting requirements (possibly), or entrenched bureaucracy, or teaching unions it's been impossible to implement anything more flexible?

Well, I would say yes, except it's the same bureaucracy that puts in the legislation and monitors the funding and makes he requirements for the charter schools.

Teachers associations (http://www.myaea.org/) (not sure if they are a true union or not) , however, are a different story. They are the one's putting on the TV spots and campaigning against the charter school bills.