Chance of New Charter School Legislation in WA? (Seattle: pre-school, income)

[Seacove]

I work, pay PLENTY of taxes, support public schools and teachers. And I vote.
As a parent with two children in school, I'm not interested in seeing public schools gutted.

If you like charter schools so much, demonizing teachers and public schools, I'm sure there are plenty of states you could go to. I hear Texas is pretty happening. Or Wisconsin.

[docwatson]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I work, pay PLENTY of taxes, support public schools and teachers. And I vote.
As a parent with two children in school, I'm not interested in seeing public schools gutted.

If you like charter schools so much, demonizing teachers and public schools, I'm sure there are plenty of states you could go to. I hear Texas is pretty happening. Or Wisconsin.

Oh please. Charter schools ARE public schools, they employ many fine certified teachers (some my friends), and Minnesota was the nation's leader in charter school legislation. Like I said, if you like the offerings of yr district public school you ought to be able to choose it, but if you don't I, 40 states including OR, and Presidents Clinton and Obama think you ought to be able to choose a charter. I personally prefer the Waldorf philosophy. And I like choices. With the advent of charters, the standard public schools in many districts adopted innovative programs like IB, language immersion, arts specialty schools and extended classes for science labs in order to offer more choices. Not to mention the innovative charters in low-income areas.

And school ought to prepare one to think thru issues intelligently, not parrot slogans, use "straw men" and express prejudices ('nough said). Funny I saw not a single person demonizing teachers here, or advocating lowering funding for education. I really think you're confusing your issues.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by Seacove

I work, pay PLENTY of taxes, support public schools and teachers. And I vote.
As a parent with two children in school, I'm not interested in seeing public schools gutted. ...

Ha-Ha #2

I too pay WA property taxes (to the tune of $33/day, yes that is over $12k/yr in wasted $$ to WA inept 'stuff' / fluff) over 50% of which goes to a FAILED WA K-22 school system that was unable to serve my family. Many of the good teachers have left the system due to being forced to 'Tutor' students for the WASL test scores. so sad...

OUTSOURCE WA K-22 EDU , Lets get some knowledge around these parts. (Whoops, that might mean an informed electorate )

[Seacove]

Docwatson, see post above.

StealthRabbit, I'm paying similar and I still support public education. You have a vote and so do I and I vote for schools. I don't try to attack teachers or unions. You want to rip a state apart, move to Wisconsin. Take a nice yummy bite of Florida schools while you're at it.

What states like Wisconsin will learn is, if you gut the schools, the families will leave. And if the families leave, the job pool deteriorates. If the job pool deteriorates, the companies will leave. No companies = no jobs = no tax revenue. The elderly might be voting against schools because they just want their property taxes to be cheaper but that does not create a competitive job pool.

So far, Western Washington is doing okay considering the economy and the resulting budget challenges, but there are other states that are being incredibly short-sighted.

[docwatson]

Yes, OK Seacove, there are extremes on both sides. I do not agree that the entire 'system' has failed, but that many schools have and that changing bureacracies is a bit like turning the Titanic. At the risk of sounding "elitist" or whatever, I also believe there are those of us drawn to the creative, whole-person education offered by schools like Waldorf but not by most typical public schools. Charter school supporters are supporters of choice and innovation, not opponents of public education. And many teachers love the freedom to be educators that charter schools afford.

While I disagree with StealthRabbit's characterization of systemic failure and the need to outsource everything, even SR hasn't "demonized" teachers yet or even called for spending cuts. I think those who live in forward-thinking districts, such as college towns, and those who live in middle-to-upper middle class districts and are happy with a standard public education are probably fairly satisfied with their systems. But even these systems are enhanced by choice, I believe.

I do have a beef with over-politicized teachers' unions (and no, this has nothing to do with what is going on in Wisconsin). I studied ed policy with some of these folks and they opposed any form of merit pay, accountability, and choice, even defending a principal of an urban school who felt poor minorities should just drop out (based on the premise that holding a principal accountable was inherently anti-teacher). I was wondering how they would feel once they come up against the bureaucracy. I've seen people fight for years to convince public school bureaucracies that students need more than 50 minutes at a time in science lab or that art, music and physical education are worth teaching. I've been in public schools where 8th grade students couldn't use a ruler well enough to take woodshop. Etc. Etc. So the antagonism to charters seems to me misplaced.

[Seacove]

Docwatson, I see both sides. I may live in a nice district now and appreciate my circumstances. But I grew up in an extremely financially-challenged environment. Were it not for public education, I'm not sure how things would have turned out. It doesn't matter how much I make, I will always view it through that lens. I want those same opportunities for every student and while I don't have an issue with charter schools specifically, I don't want it to be the Trojan horse that leads to privatizing education or reducing the importance of public education - and you know what I mean.

There is nothing wrong with those with the means choosing a private education for their children. But I don't want an environment that creates a "have" and "have not" education, where the value of public education is weakened because certain programs are supported at the cost of others depending on your district or location. There will always be school districts that are better than others - I wish it wasn't so, but that's reality. I will always vote to support public education.

I'm not going to get into the union discussion because I think the attack on unions has nothing to do with unions, but Republicans trying to weaken Democrats through politics. As soon as they have you comparing your deal with the next guy's you're not looking at what is really going on.

[docwatson]

Well said, Seacove. I think unfortunately we already have quite a have- and have-not education system. We are looking at moving to Tacoma and 2 things strike me: 1) while the district overall is far from stellar, there are two public elementaries on the north side (where we are looking) that rate 9 out of 10 in test scores; and a bunch of schools on the south side that rank 2 or 3 out of 10 - tracking closely with income in those areas. (Even with these two "high performing schools"", I am attracted to the Waldorf school even at $600/mo. Here in Colorado we could probably find a Waldorf charter). I always went to large consolidated schools (or schools in smaller communities) so we had everyone in the same high school, but even then there was tracking (8th grade students who can't use a ruler?). Urban schools in particular need to do a stellar job of making up for what may lack in the nieghborhood or home environment, yet often can be prone to bureaucratic inertia, burned out teachers, etc. As an urbanist, one who prefers living in cities to suburbs, I also think its a shame that so many of our urban districts scare middle class parents off.

While I appreciate the public education I got, I also know it was hit-and-miss in fostering creativity and independent thought.

While I think there are certainly people who promote privatization (and all sorts of extremes such as the failed for-profit school model tried in Philadelphia), there is also a large choice/charter movement that has been embraced across the political spectrum. Minnesota's law is considered exemplary in requiring charters to serve a cross-section of the community - they cannot cherry pick the best students. I think the charter movement can be a real equity-builder because it gives the middle-class and poor the ability to choose what are essentially private schools. It also can be pro-urban in bringing choices into these areas.

[jinj]

Can anyone explain what a charter school actually is and how it differs from a regular public school?

[docwatson]

I won't give a technical defenition, but it is basically a non-profit entity similar to a private school, but whose operations are funded through the local school district (generally based on enrollment) and which accepts students from the local school district without additional fees. Each of the 40 states that have charter school legislation have their own requirements, but charter schools have to meet state educational requirements. In many states require the local district to approve of the charter schools. In Minnesota, at least, a charter school is required to enroll a student body that does not differ radically from the overall district in terms of race/ethnicity (making charters more egalitarian than the geographic-based 'typical' public schools). Where there is intra-district choice, such as in Colorado, charter schools blend in with the rest of the district because you can choose to enroll your children in any of the have transportation!)

Charter schools often have a particular educational philosophy, such as Waldorf, core knowledge, experiential education, or they may have a focus like science, arts, environment, language immersion or International Baccalaureate, but all have to meet basic state education standards. Some are established in low-income areas with a specific mission of better serving students there.

As a non-profit governed by a board, and as a school whose students choose to attend, there is the potential for a lot of parent involvement and for responsiveness from the school to its 'clients' - the students and their parents - setting it apart from the larger district.

There are tons of research on charter schools - its been several years since I've been involved. I would say just as with any school I am sure there are good and bad, but overall research seems to be quite positive (with the exception of the for-profit experiment in Philly I mentioned).

I think increasingly 'typical' public schools are offering many of the options that charter schools offer, such as the Arts focussed high school in Tacoma, International Baccalaureate, language immersion ...

[Seacove]

NEA - Charter Schools

Here is a link to the National Education Association take on Charter Schools. There are good and bad Charter schools. There have been Charter Schools that turned out to be very bad but the same could be said about public schools. What's important in my view is to not take away from public schools in any way in order to support them.