Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, of course it's not right that they take public school monies for each child, but the states allow it!
And of course, it's not right that they don't have to follow all the mandates and take all the tests that the public schools have to. Seems to me that if you're going to compare one to the other, all things have to be equal!
Charters can hire whoever they want to teach, doesn't have to be union. However, the staff can get together and ask that a union be allowed in to represent them. The whole premise of charters is to be free of the strictures placed on other schools, so they can do what they think is better (or cheaper) and they can teach whatever they want to whoever they want.
I've been against them from the get-go. The only place that alternative schools might be effective is in the inner city, where publics may be pretty bad and kids have no other choice of where to go, since they can't afford private schools where the wealthy kids attend. Unfortunately, not all charters actually make a difference. Some are as good as publics but most are pretty bad.
Overall they have been a dismal failure. Very high teacher turnover because salary is below that of even parochial schools and very poorly managed. Where do you think NYSED Superintendent Dr John B King Jr got his "experience" from. Running a charter school into bankruptcy on our dime.
I've passed this purple building on Franklin Avenue in Hempstead a few times. On the side, it says something or another charter school. It's a pretty building. Does anyone know how it's doing? Is it really making a difference?
I've passed this purple building on Franklin Avenue in Hempstead a few times. On the side, it says something or another charter school. It's a pretty building. Does anyone know how it's doing? Is it really making a difference?
The school is performing above expectations. I don't know the exact percentage but I do know most of the students passed and exceeded expectation. The school is equipped with all the latest technology to prepare students for all their work. They have tudoring afterschool and weekend classes.
Location: Prince Georges County, MD (formerly Long Island, NY)
1,558 posts, read 2,710,507 times
Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Equal-Opp.
The school is performing above expectations. I don't know the exact percentage but I do know most of the students passed and exceeded expectation. The school is equipped with all the latest technology to prepare students for all their work. They have tudoring afterschool and weekend classes.
No, of course it's not right that they take public school monies for each child, but the states allow it!
And of course, it's not right that they don't have to follow all the mandates and take all the tests that the public schools have to. Seems to me that if you're going to compare one to the other, all things have to be equal!
Charters can hire whoever they want to teach, doesn't have to be union. However, the staff can get together and ask that a union be allowed in to represent them. The whole premise of charters is to be free of the strictures placed on other schools, so they can do what they think is better (or cheaper) and they can teach whatever they want to whoever they want.
I've been against them from the get-go. The only place that alternative schools might be effective is in the inner city, where publics may be pretty bad and kids have no other choice of where to go, since they can't afford private schools where the wealthy kids attend. Unfortunately, not all charters actually make a difference. Some are as good as publics but most are pretty bad.
The bold part isn't actually true - charter school students are required to take the same state tests as everyone else. Where they're allowed to differ is in length of school day (and sometimes length of school year, at least when it comes to the NYC charters, which I know more about than I do those on LI), and in the fact that they are permitted to hire - and generally do hire - non-union teachers (as you note, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that front). As for why they receive public money, the kids taught in charter schools are PUBLIC SCHOOL students, so I'm not sure what the big outrage is over public money being used to educate public school kids. If these kids weren't being educated by the charter, they'd be getting an education at a local district school, which would then be receiving state funding for them, since state funding is generally allocated on a per-pupil basis.
Effectiveness is a totally separate - and valid - question, but if you want to tie public funds to performance for charters, the same should be true for all other public schools. Any terrible traditional public school on Long Island (Brentwood, CI, William Floyd, Roosevelt) can get state money just because it's a public school, no matter how poor the outcomes are for its students - why do you think it should be different for charters, which are also public schools?
Ok, then that's a change I wasn't aware of, in the beginning they didn't have to take the same tests.
The problem with charters taking a "student's moneys worth" from the district, is that the money covers more than just their education or teacher! It also covers every other expense in the district, such as other staff, maintenance, repairs, sports, instruments, mandates, computers, supplies, you name it. That stuff doesn't go with the student to the charter, but it still has to be provided for those students who remain in the public school. So it's technically taking away from the public more than it should be.
Yes, they are public school students, if they weren't going to a charter. But, then again, so are all the kids who go to private and parochial schools - and those don't get to take their "money's worth" with them! Districts do pay for some things for those students, but certainly not anywhere near the amount the charters grab from them! The amount schools lose in state aid due to kids going to charters is just more reason for concern when added to the "student's money's worth" that is lost as well!
I certainly don't consider charters as public schools! They aren't run by the district they are located in, they are run by private entities wishing to create some alternative education. They certainly don't have to follow School Law, nor are they having parents electing school board members to create policy and budgets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
