Will Obama protect public education?

[cjbgreen]

It is time to ask "top of what?" Where is Obama's plan taking us? I do not believe that we want public education to be turned over to corporations and this race suggests the winners will not be our students and our communities. This is not about student accountability and bad teachers remaining in the classroom this is about PUBLIC education, schools that aren't designed for profit, reasonable class sizes, transportation, curriculum that includes art, music, history and science (which are being systematically eliminated), experienced well-trained dedicated teachers in the classroom and educational leaders whose first obligation is to educating children and the communities and not corporate interests. Seattle public schools may win the marathon.
http://seattleducation2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/washington-state-remains-free-from-race-to-the-top-extortion/

[Angry Dragon]

1. NO

[DrDan]

2. sounds to me like charter schools are a big aspect of Obama's reform package

turn those education tax dollars over to the corporate weasels

[havocmom]

8. Yep. And privatizing usually = less wages paid to those who actually do the work

That results in less payroll taxes paid, while the corporations usually get all sorts of tax breaks. That means the Federal Dollars bleed out faster and do not get returned in the same tax base.

The federal government has been selling off all assets to private corporations at cut rate prices. This administration is not any different from the last in that venture, except that it has widened the industries that are taking part in taking over the nation

It's fascism.

[Recursion]

11. Charter schools are public, though

At least everywhere I've lived. I've heard of "private charter schools" in some places but I'm not even sure what that would mean.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Funny

[Recursion]

17. What is?

I just mean literally, they are public schools. They have to take all comers on a first-come, first-serve or lottery basis, they can't charge tuition, and they receive public funding according to the same formula "regular" public schools do (this formula gets gamed by charter schools and "regular" public schools regularly, of course).

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. And they work by different formulas and are for profit

when we still educated people we called this by it's proper name, privatized public services.

We don't educate people any more so they cannot figure things out any more. And I am serious on that.

When Americans finally wake up, a generation of kids, if not more, will be lost. Or perhaps this is what power elites want... and sadly I am not jocking. By the way, this is about busting unions as well...

But that is ok... someday Americans will wake up and realize they have to RE-FIGHT long won battles that now are lost.

[Recursion]

22. In DC and Boston (where I've lived) they have to be non-profit

And some are unionized.

Now, in DC there was a problem with non-profit schools getting a charter and then outsourcing everything to a for-profit corporation who did the actual teaching (oh, and totally coincidentally, the same people were on the board of both the non-profit and for-profit), but they're finding ways to crack down on that, and up here in Boston the charters are all actual honest-to-God non-profits (though there aren't nearly as many of them here as in DC).

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Some day Americans will wake up

I am glad I don't have kids... or I'd have to consider MOVING to a country that still values PUBLIC education.

This one does not, and the price to pay will be VERY HIGH. You'll see, perhaps.

[Recursion]

28. Well, what do you mean by "public"?

Like I said, charter schools are public. Do you mean "unionized faculty"? Some charter schools have that -- even some of the KIPP schools. Do you mean "operational control by the district"?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Charter schools may use public funds

but they are PRIVATE enterprises. If you don't understand that, I can't help you.

[Recursion]

32. What do you mean by "private"?

They're chartered non-profit organizations. The whole point is to get out from direct control of school districts, so, yes, in that sense they're "private", and that's what parents who line up to send their kids to them want

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. You keep telling yourself that

given that charters have the same rate of success or failure as the public system....

But I am sure you knew that... really.

[Whisp]

57. the price has already been paid

education in the US fails miserably compared to other so called civilised societies. Where have you been?

the curiosity has been flogged out of the kids, arts programs cut,, sports, etc.

last I heard Obama wants to go back to concentrate on the sciences and arts, which is fantastic. Art programs have great value in the general round out education of kids.

sour all you want, but I can't see Obama deliberately dumbing down american kids any more than they are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. It will get worst than it already is

but that's ok...

Look the system needs reforms but No Child Left Behind is not a solution, and this is not a solution either.

Don't worry... somebody we might wake up.

[Fearless]

29. I'll take this from a Special Education POV for a second...

Many public schools pool money to send special needs students to one nearby high school (for example), because they are able to afford more programs for these students who are in need by centralizing the process. The same amount of money is used but more students can profit from services. This is true for Special Education, but the same cost efficiency is true across subjects and departments. Larger schools, while they can have their own host of issues, can offer students more, for example AP classes, than smaller ones, with the SAME amount of money.

Now let's look at charter schools. By lottery or first-come-first serve, they withdraw money from public schools. They MAY help those select few, based NOT on NEED but on RANDOM CHANCE or LOTTERY. The remainder of students will have fewer options in their schools. Fewer AP classes, fewer educational opportunities, fewer technologies, etc. They will receive an education separate in quality from their counterparts in other schools because they are having opportunities taken away from them.

[Recursion]

34. Special needs students are a huge problem with charter schools, I agree

Now let's look at charter schools. By lottery or first-come-first serve, they withdraw money from public schools.

They are public schools. They transfer funds from one public school to another, just like the traditional public schools do (opening a new high school in Northwest DC means less money for Southeast DC unless they also increase the budget).

Now, I'm totally with you on the economies of scale, but then large schools come with their own problems for students, don't they? And, for that matter, nothing keeps someone from getting a charter for a large school.

Now, I'm all for doing more to keep for-profits out of the "consulting" business for charters (and DC and Boston both seem to have figured out more or less how to do that, though DC is taking longer). There are tradeoffs between large schools and small schools, I agree, but that's a separate issue from whether or not there should be charter schools, and how many there should be (though it might play into debates on what enrollment levels a charter should be allowed).

[Fearless]

86. The problem remains either...

1. There is no difference between students' educations at a public school versus a charter school.

Or.

2. There is a difference in the education between a public and charter school.


If 1 is true then charter schools are completely unnecessary. If 2 is true, then charter schools are unconstitutional based on Separate But Equal.

[johnaries]

54. That is a misconception. By definition they are non-profit.

Google definition charter schools.

[DrDan]

90. well . . .

"Imagine Schools was founded in 2004 by billionaire global power company CEO Dennis Bakke and his wife as a for-profit chain of charter school operators, and are currently among the largest of its kind, running dozens of schools in 12 states."

http://www.examiner.com/x-12824-Dade-County-Education-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Who-profits-from-forprofit-charter-schools-in-Florida

[LWolf]

19. They are "public" because the word is used

in the legislation that allows them to gain a charter. They are still privately run institutions using public funding, which is, in my book, not "public," except for the use of public funds which they should not have access to.

Kind of like Bush's "Clean Air Act," "Healthy Forests Restoration Act," "No Child Left Behind," etc.: call it one thing, but the reality is another.

Edited to add: not all charter schools take students on a "first come, first served" or lottery basis. All reserve the right to "counsel" students out of the school if they aren't a good fit; something real public schools can't do.

In reality, though, charter school populations are self-filtering. Since most charters aren't neighborhood schools, they generally don't bus kids in from the wide area they draw from. That's costly. That leaves them with: 1. Parents who choose them because of program, which is narrowed down to 2. Families with the resources to provide transportation themselves.

Then, unless they are a charter school specifically geared to serve special ed students, they don't provide the same level of resources for those students, so they won't have to serve too many.

See how that works?

[Recursion]

25. Well, public funds and guaranteed admission

They have to accept all students, or do a lottery if they're over-subscribed (and yes, some discourage special needs students, and that needs to be cracked down on). When they're being regulated correctly, though, they have to take anybody and not charge tuition, and they get public money under ostensibly the same formula "regular" public schools do. The district's operational oversight of them is limited, but they are accountable for student performance in a way "regular" public schools aren't.

In DC and Boston, I've seen some really good charter schools and some really bad ones. But you could say the same about traditional public schools, too.

[LWolf]

27. Read again; I added some.

[Recursion]

31. Thanks; I just read it. I'm concerned by the "counseling out" too

And by the pre-counseling out that happens ("Of course we can take your developmentally disabled and behaviorally disruptive son... however, we don't think we're the best choice for him because we don't have the facilities blah blah blah")

Then again, traditional public schools find ways to shuffle problem students (and teachers) around. Now, I grew up in a small town in Mississippi with one school for each grade level, so they couldn't do that. But from what I've seen in DC they do find ways to do that since all of the schools are open enrollment (Boston seems to have stronger neighborhood ties to schools, but I haven't dealt with BPS nearly as much as I dealt with DCPS so I don't really know what they do and don't do).

But, though I risk a thousand chipmunk bites for saying this, the issue here is not "will public education continue?", but "will public education continue in the form it existed in for the past 60 years?" Charter schools are public schools that are publicly funded, that are accountable to school boards in a different way than traditional public schools. I'm not really a charter school fan, for the most part, but DU's refusing to call them "public" bugs me. I've seen good charters and bad charters, and I'm not sure the disruption to the system was worth it. But they simply are public.

[LWolf]

43. I don't think we need to continue in the same form.

We have to evolve along with our culture.

I just don't think charter schools are one of the many positive forms we ought to be looking at.

I've never worked at a school that shuffled students with learning problems, but behavior problems? Sometimes. More an earnest desire to shuffle, when you've tried everything you know (and have resources for,) and nothing helps.

I have one like that now. He has an IEP for emotional disturbances. He comes from a dysfunctional family with a single, disconnected parent. His older brothers? One in jail, one in juvie. Two years of pouring everything we've (and we've means teachers, admins, counselors, sped teachers) got into getting him to function, and he's worse every year. It's not working. He needs a program focused on intervention and treatment of mental health issues. So we're trying to get him approved for a county program.

As for charter school accountability? They are accountable to school boards in a different way. Less accountability, and less oversight. A privately run organization that has to make reports to the board at least once a year, and has to ask the board if they can change something that was written into the original charter.

It isn't just education. I don't like the privatization of ANY public entity. I support a strong separation of privately run and publicly run enterprises.

[Recursion]

44. Maybe that's different by state?

As for charter school accountability? They are accountable to school boards in a different way. Less accountability, and less oversight. A privately run organization that has to make reports to the board at least once a year, and has to ask the board if they can change something that was written into the original charter.

In DC they actually are accountable to a separate body from the school system (there's no longer a "school board" as such -- it's part of the remnants of DC's fucked up quasi-colony status), and they have to meet specific student performance targets specified in the charter or they disappear. Boston seems closer to what you're describing, though the one charter I did any work with, Match, is absofucking-lutely awesome and part of why I bristle when I see people attacking charters here (though it's a magnet charter, and traditional magnets are usually awesome too).

[LWolf]

82. Every state is different.

50 different dept of eds, 50 different sets of licensing requirements, standards, and laws relating to education, including laws about charter schools.

So yes, charters will differ from state to state. They will also differ from district to district, since actually approving a charter is a district responsibility, except in the case of a whole-state approved charter. Many of the corporate charters skip getting district approval; they get a blanket approval from the state and open multiple schools across the state. It allows them to put a charter within a district's boundaries without their approval or oversight.

While, on average, charter schools do not perform as well as public schools do, there can be some really good schools, just as there are really good public schools.

It's dangerous, though, to look at any charter school and proclaim them "great" without taking into account the filtering mechanisms we already mentioned. It's easy to look better when you can filter out less successful students and less involved parents.

Still, some are going to be good. You're going to get a good school, when a small school is staffed by people empowered to make good things happen, rather than a school and staff standardized under an authoritarian regime. That, and getting buy-in from parents because they CHOSE the school, is a definite recipe for success.

The reasons I oppose charters aren't because I don't see that some can be good. I oppose them because I oppose privatization and union-busting on principle, and charters are a tool to accomplish those things. I also oppose them because they are anti-democratic. I don't think it's appropriate to set up "tiers" of education, allowing some schools, parents, and students more benefits than others. I think that allowing customization of every public school in the nation would be the democratic thing to do, and I know that doing so would make charters irrelevant and unnecessary.

The demand for charter schools, though, is driven by dissatisfaction with the authoritarian standardized regime in the rest of the nation's public schools. When the culture is to blame and punish public education, to set public schools up to fail using high-stakes testing, the cycle of blame and punish grows, and people look elsewhere. The charter school movement knows this. Since it was set up to privatize education, the more unhappy people are with the public education system, the more the movement grows. It's a vicious cycle.

That's why, in the end, regardless of some individual schools, I oppose charters and see them as hurting efforts to improve public education. In this cycle of blame, punish, privatize, and union-bust, we will never have the support and resources we need to create fundamental, healthy, positive change, and the achievement gaps will never be narrowed to reasonable margins. Equal opportunity for a high-quality education for every student will simply never happen.

In the bigger picture, the charter school movement does more harm than good.

[w4rma]

3. laugh. (nt)

[Starry Messenger]

4. No.

He's a fierce advocate for the Chamber of Commerce.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Sorrry. He's a bit busy defending a lost war and bankers right now.

[AnArmyVeteran]

6. NO, he's already taken a stand against teachers.

[Hannah Bell]

7. no. he's destroying it, even over the sound of increasing resistance.

which he pretends doesn't exist, or is mere fogyish "resistance to change".

obama's ed policy = scorched earth, take no prisoners.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. No

[Recursion]

10. Define "public education". Charter schools are public schools.

But that's not what most people mean.

[flyarm]

35. but with zero accountability! From both parents and tax payers!

[Recursion]

36. What do you mean "zero accountability"?

The charter specifies student achievement targets, and if those aren't met the charter is revoked. It can also be revoked based on other problems that come up (this is less likely because it takes a deliberate action by the board). And then there's the "market accountability" with the parents; they have to get enough families interested in sending their kids there to reach their charter's minimum required enrollment (though I'm not a huge fan of "market accountability" as a concept, since marketing can do so much to undo the real accountability).

[w4rma]

45. So switching from a democratically elected school board to a robber baron who lives far far away

is accountability? No. It's robbing money meant for education to pay for that 3rd and fourth mansion on the river.

[Recursion]

46. Again, I'm just dealing with what I know

The charters I've dealt with aren't run by some "education management corporation" (though I know these exist, just not in the places I've been), they're run by local educators.

If you want me to say there shouldn't be for-profits involved in charters, I'm happy to say it, vote for it, campaign for it, etc. But then again the shady fly-by-night charters that we saw when DC started to allow charters did just that: fly by night. They all disappeared pretty quickly, and the serious schools stayed. Now, "competition" isn't necessarily what I want in education (it's way too disruptive for the kids), but with proper chartering (which DC didn't have at the beginning) it seems reasonable that you could avoid most of that.

Is there a possible Music Man scenario where the robber baron comes in and dupes the gullible rubes of the school board? Sure. So let's work on preventing that.

[w4rma]

48. I'm just going to work on preventing more charter schools from opening up. Thanks.

Rip off artists. You can't make education competitive.

Also, and getting Arne Duncan out of any position of power, ASAP.

[w4rma]

37. Charter schools are not public, because they are not *owned* by the public.

They are instead owned by a very few robber barons intent on profiting off of a captive clientele.

The vast majority of charter schools are set up in some way to redivert education dollars into some robber baron's pocket.

[Recursion]

42. Despite the horror stories I keep seeing good things

I keep running into charter schools that are more or less what they are supposed to be: non-profit organizations that do the teaching themselves rather than outsourcing it to for-profits (DC had some problems with that early on but dealt with it pretty well as far as I could see).

I've heard of robber barons coming in to destroy education and turn it into a for-profit business. But I've also heard of people on welfare driving Cadillacs.

And, incidentally, the facilities of a school may or may not be owned by the public; that's part of the charter process, and part of the absurdly contorted negotiations about figuring out what level of funding is "parity".

[MadHound]

50. Charter schools aren't public schools

They are owned by a small group of private individuals, or a corporation, not by the community at large. They aren't held as accountable, nor do they have same admission standards as public schools. They are, legally, a private entity.

[Recursion]

51. Well, in the districts I've been in, they have to be less selective than public schools

nor do they have same admission standards as public schools

In the cities I've lived in they have to take anyone on a first-come first-serve basis, or through a lottery if they are over-subscribed. DC had open enrollment in the traditional public schools with a lottery, but here were set-aside slots for neighborhood kids (with administrators able and willing to commit certain enormities in stretching the meaning of "neighborhood"), something charters couldn't do.

They are owned by a small group of private individuals, or a corporation, not by the community at large

I'm not sure I'd say traditional public schools are "owned by" the community at large, but I concede your point: charters are operated by and entirely the responsibility of the proprieters, who negotiate a charter with the chartering authority (generally the school board, though not in DC). In that charter they set goals for student achievement, and if those aren't met, their charter is liable for revocation. It's a different model of accountability, yes, but they are accountable. They are publicly funded. They are required to take all students (some try to get out of serving ELL or special needs students through various forms of sleaze. This needs to be rooted out.) And unless you simply ignore the definitions used by every single district and state, they are by definition public schools.

[w4rma]

52. They are not public schools. They are private schools that are privately owned.

Don't play semantics.

[Recursion]

55. You're playing semantics by trying to redefine things

They simply are public schools. There's no way around this. This is like talking to a creationist. Charter schools are public schools. End of story. They are public schools whose style of management and oversight you don't like (and for that matter I don't really like in most cases).

[johnaries]

56. No, they are not privately owned. They are publicly owned.

And they are accountable to the State based on the standards stated in their charter. They are publicly-owned and not-for-profit.

[Recursion]

58. They may be privately managed, but that's true of traditional public schools too

And I'm not for either one of those happening, nor do I think anyone on this board is.

[MadHound]

62. What public school have you seen that is managed by a private entity?

My guess, none. Please, stop this, your disinformed views are embarrassing to yourself.

[Recursion]

64. It was an issue at one point in DC

When the schools were in receivership they handed over management of some of them to some "education management corporation". Didn't really work. LA did it at one point too, and I think Dallas.

[MadHound]

70. Ah, so this was a cleanup operation,

This isn't a normal occurrence, at least not yet. OK.

[Recursion]

72. Yeah, I've only heard about it in cases of receivership

Though I don't think anything would keep a school district from doing it as a matter of course, and there are plenty that already buy their curricula from "education" companies.

[MadHound]

61. Umm, charter schools are privately owned,

How many school charters have you seen? I've seen plenty, and every single one of them named either private individuals or corporate entities as owners of the school. Thus, they are private schools, ones that take public money and aren't held to the same standards as public schools are. Guess what, some of them even make a profit.

[Recursion]

65. Non-profits can't "make a profit"

Though their revenues can exceed their expenses over a given time period.

And school charters can only be given to non-profits.

[MadHound]

69. WHOOMP! There it is!

You continue to make my points for me.

Economics 101, when your revenue exceeds your costs over a given period of time, that is known as "profit."

And the fact of the matter is several supposedly "non-profit" charter schools make a healthy profit. That profit is usually given out as "bonuses" or "raises" or sometimes even reinvested back into the school. But it is profit nonetheless.

[Recursion]

73. Accounting 101

Economics 101, when your revenue exceeds your costs over a given period of time, that is known as "profit."

No. When the US Government's revenues exceeded its expenses in 1999 and 2000, it did not make a "profit", it carried a "surplus".

[MadHound]

75. Yes, but we're not talking about the US, or any other government

We're talking about a charter school, owned by a private individual or entity. Therefore, when revenues exceed expenses, it is known as "profit".

[Recursion]

77. No, it's not, it depends on the type of corporation it is

Any non-profit can have years where its revenues exceed its expenses, but the difference can't be passed out as dividends to the members of the corporation (that's "profit"). Any excess has to be kept as part of the endowment (or whatever the equivalent of "endowment" is for the corporation in question).

By your argument, a school district or town could have made a "profit" in a year where their cash flow was net-positive.

[DrDan]

91. wrong wrong wrong

http://epsl.asu.edu/ceru/Documents/EPSL-0708-239-CERU.pdf

"An Education Management Organization, or EMO, is a private firm that manages
schools receiving public funds, including district public schools (also called non-charter
schools in this report) and charter schools. The EMO-managed schools tracked in this
report operate under the same admissions rules as regular public schools and are operated
for-profit."

[DrDan]

92. no - there is profit involved

http://www.examiner.com/x-12824-Dade-County-Education-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d6-Who-profits-from-forprofit-charter-schools-in-Florida

These BFEE cronies are already in multiple states.

[Recursion]

66. Consider the difference between charter schools and private schools

The school district can do absolutely nothing to influence a private school. Zero. The state can de-accredit it, but that's it.

The school district (or whoever has the chartering authority) can dissolve a charter school pretty much at will (there may or may not be limitations on when and for what reasons they can in the charter itself). What they can't do is go in and make operational decisions like they can for a traditional public school. They can set goals and allocate resources, which from what I remember is all good managers are supposed to do anyways.

[MadHound]

60. Wow, you make my point for me, then claim the exact opposite.

Charter schools are owned by private individuals, we agree on that.

Your contention that an entity that receives public funding is therefore public is flawed. Sports stadiums also take taxpayers' money, but they are considered private entities because they are owned by private individuals or corporations The same standard applies to charter schools. The key is in the ownership. Your local school district is owned by your local government, and by extension the people of the community. A charter school is owned, lock, stock and textbooks, by a private entity. It is, therefore, not a public school.

Furthermore charter schools, in many cases don't have to try and "get out" of serving students with disabilities. Rather, they can simply and safely ignore those requirements that public schools are held to.

As far as accountability goes, in many case that is a joke. You do realize that several studies have found that charter schools, at best do no better than public schools, and many times much worse. This simply shows up how little charters are held accountable for.

Your reliance upon state and local legal definitions is laughable, given that any good lawyer or bureaucrat can define black as white and up as down. Again, look at who owns the school, is it the local community or a private entity? If it is a private entity, then logically it is a private school.

[Recursion]

63. No

Charter schools are owned by private individuals, we agree on that.

No.

Charter schools are run by non-profit corporations that are formed of private individuals. They are "owned" by the public. The facilities may be owned by the public or by the non-profit; it depends on the district.

Your contention that an entity that receives public funding is therefore public is flawed. Sports stadiums also take taxpayers' money, but they are considered private entities because they are owned by private individuals or corporations

Stadiums are in general owned by for-profit corporations. No school charter can be given to a for-profit corporation, as far as I know that's true in all 50 states and DC.


Furthermore charter schools, in many cases don't have to try and "get out" of serving students with disabilities. Rather, they can simply and safely ignore those requirements that public schools are held to.

No. I'd love some evidence of that. Charters have to take whoever applies to them, with a lottery if they are over-enrolled. Now, like I said, some charter schools have developed a reputation for discouraging special needs or ELL students from applying in the first place (and chartering boards need to come down on this like a ton of bricks when it happens), but once they've applied they have to accept them like anyone else.

As far as accountability goes, in many case that is a joke. You do realize that several studies have found that charter schools, at best do no better than public schools, and many times much worse. This simply shows up how little charters are held accountable for.

Again, no. I realize there are shitty charter schools and great charter schools, just like traditional public schools. In DC, the shitty charter schools got shut down after a couple of years. The shitty public schools are still there, still not educating kids.

[Hannah Bell]

67. what, precisely, does the public "own" concerning charter schools?

they don't "own" the management (as in a school board which can be voted in or out).

they don't "own" the building a good deal of the time -- the private corp owns that.

they don't "own" the curriculum (often proprietary, from the same private corp)

they don't "own" the teachers -- those are at-will hires/fires by the same corp.

wtf does the public "own"?

the only "accountability" charter schools have is the same one any private corp has -- you can deny them your business by taking your kid out of the school.

some people think that matters. but it don't, because the monopoly game always winds up with a small handful of owners. of any "free market" good.

charter schools funnel public money into private hands. that's why the ruling class wants them.

period.

all the "success stories," one by one, are proving to have been fraudulent.

but the juggernaut rolls on.

[Recursion]

71. What the public owns

they don't "own" the management (as in a school board which can be voted in or out).

We elect the school board, which in most cases is the body that grants and terminates the charter. By the terms of the charter, the operational control of the board is basically nil: they either give them an up or down vote after a certain period of time, based on whatever criteria were negotiated in the charter. Contrast this to a private school, which no publicly-elected body has any power over (other than the state accreditation board, and even that can't actually shut it down, just make it less attractive).

they don't "own" the building a good deal of the time -- the private corp owns that.

They may or may not, and the non-profit may or may not own the building. Match in Boston rents theirs from BU, for instance.

they don't "own" the curriculum (often proprietary, from the same private corp)

Traditional public schools can also contract curriculum management to for-profit companies. It's a mistake when either class of school does it, IMO.

they don't "own" the teachers -- those are at-will hires/fires by the same corp.

I certainly don't "own" Boston's traditional public school teachers, either. I vote for the school board who sets the policies for the administrators who hire the teachers. In a charter school, I vote for the school board who grants and periodically renews or terminates the charter for the administrators who hire the teachers. It's less direct control, yes, but it's definitely there, and charter schools do get their charters revoked when they fail to meet their goals.

[MadHound]

68. Question for you,

Are you in the field of education, in any form or fashion? Have you examined any school charters, or the legal documents that back them up? What, exactly, is your expertise in this matter.

Just to be fair, I'm a teacher, and over the course of the years and decades I've had ample opportunity to examine these sorts of documents and decisions, and I keep myself well informed with reading from the educational field. I know whereof I speak.

So, what is your claim to this great knowledge of yours. You've made a lot of big claims, with very little to back them up, so please, tell us, what is backing your happy ass up besides hot air.

Oh, and as far as the quality of charter schools go, here's some reading for you.
<http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0629/Study-On-average-charter-schools-do-no-better-than-public-schools>
<http://www.edsource.org/assets/files/CharterSchoolPR_08.pdf>
<http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_viewpoints_charter_schools/>

[Recursion]

74. A) I'm well aware plenty of charter schools suck

B) I've tutored in several schools and school districts for over a decade

Have you examined any school charters, or the legal documents that back them up?

Yes, the charters I've worked at, and the charters that opened in the neighborhood I lived in.

And I'm not sure what "sweeping claims" you're talking about: this whole thread I've just been trying to point out something that's black letter law, namely, that charter schools are public schools.

[MadHound]

76. That is one of the sweeping claims you're making,

Namely that a school, owned and operated by a private individual or entity, is somehow public. Even though this school isn't owned by the government or the other such public entity.

Yes, plenty of charter schools suck. In fact, as I've shown, they're no better than public schools, and what's worse, they generally receive more money, per pupil, than public schools.

[Recursion]

78. It's not "somehow" public, it's "legally defined" as public.

they generally receive more money, per pupil, than public schools.

That's backwards: nationally it's $0.61 per dollar spent on traditional public school pupils.

Then again, there's a few thousand ways to count that, none of which are entirely satisfactory, so I'm sure there are ways of counting expenses that show charters getting more. (IIRC the $0.61 comes from counting the capital expenses like physical plant).

[MadHound]

79. Name another entity that is privately owned that is considered public.

As far as per pupil funding goes, but in many cases, like California, charter school students receive up to $800 more per student than public schools, not counting capital expenses. Most often it is simply a dollar for dollar exchange when a student goes from public to charter schools.

[Recursion]

80. "Public Radio" comes to mind

It's run by a privately-owned, non-profit, chartered corporation, and for that matter barely receives any government financial support.

[MadHound]

81. Actually public radio,

I assume that you're talking about NPR here, is a rather squirrely hybrid. First of all, it was created by Congress, thus the "public" part, along with receiving such funding.

A charter school is not created by a government, it is created by an individual or private corporation that then offers its services to the local government.

[cjbgreen]

96. question for you

In education, taught, administration, research, training in school improvement.
There are good charters, there are great charters, there are horrible charters, there are charters that are great for some and horrible for others! Same can be said regarding public education that is not supplemented with funds from corporations! The value in a public education (again no system is perfect and there continuous improvement is necessary in any system especially systems that work with people, public education is being compromised, good schools are loosing successful programs, qualified excellent teachers are being laid off, community schools that involve families and provide a refuge for children are being closed. That is tragic and under RTTT this is just the beginning. In several states the number of school days are being reduced because federal funding is being reduced and because of unemployment, foreclosures etc. This is America's problem regardless of who started it and I believe it began with Reagan.

[LooseWilly]

12. No.

Maybe this should've just been a poll?

I guess, after the wonderful experience of working with the health insurance industry to reform health insurance... Obama has seen the wisdom of working with &/or handing over school reform to nascent charter school corporations.

What could go wrong?

[Jakes Progress]

13. No.

More school tax money to corporate interests. More tests. Less qualified and experience teachers. Nothing at all to improve equality or equity in delivery. Nothing for school infrastructure.

In other words: ronald reagan's education plan.

[LWolf]

14. No.

If he were going to, there would be no "Race To The Top," and the recommendations his administration made to those writing the updated version of ESEA (NCLB) would be very different.

[ThomWV]

16. No, not "eduction" or the children who are supposed to be educated

Because when you think about it this has less to do with teaches and everything to do with our young people and the destiny of our nation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. No, this is about the breaking of yet another Union

but Americans will not wake up in time either.

[Fearless]

24. +1

[upi402]

20. No

[Fearless]

23. No. But don't forget... DON'T ASK QUESTIONS! THIS IS CHANGE!1!!!1!

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

30. No.

[flyarm]

33. No he is not and he is setting our Public Schools up for total privatization take over by the

richest elite. Obama's policies are a disgrace!

This is Union Busting!

This is a way for the richest to siphon money from the tax payers..hell they can't invest in the Stock market anymore or our treasury or the Euro ..so where else will they fill their coffers from..oh yeah...Public Schools!

Just like the Bushes made Prisons private and they are reaping $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rewards of your tax dollars!

[Radical Activist]

38. "No, I don’t support all charter schools, but I do support good charter schools."

Let's skip the second-hand characterizations and take a look at what Obama actually says in his recent Urban League speech. If anyone wants to claim that his words don't match his actions then please show how the two plans that have received funds (Delaware and Tennessee) are destroying public schools. Teachers unions in both states endorsed their Race to the Top Plan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-education-reform-national-urban-league-centennial-conference

And that’s why we’re challenging states to turn around our 5,000 lowest performing schools. And I don’t think it’s any secret that most of those are serving African American or Hispanic kids. We’re investing over $4 billion to help them do that, to transform those schools -– $4 billion, which even in Washington is real money. (Applause.) This isn’t about -- unlike No Child Left Behind, this isn’t about labeling a troubled school a failure and then just throwing up your hands and saying, well, we’re giving up on you. It’s about investing in that school’s future, and recruiting the whole community to help turn it around, and identifying viable options for how to move forward.

Now, in some cases, that’s going to mean restarting the school under different management as a charter school -– as an independent public school formed by parents, teachers, and civic leaders who’ve got broad leeway to innovate. And some people don’t like charter schools. They say, well, that’s going to take away money from other public schools that also need support. Charter schools aren’t a magic bullet, but I want to give states and school districts the chance to try new things. If a charter school works, then let’s apply those lessons elsewhere. And if a charter school doesn’t work, we’ll hold it accountable; we’ll shut it down.

So, no, I don’t support all charter schools, but I do support good charter schools. I’ll give you an example. There’s a charter school called Mastery in Philadelphia. And in just two years, three of the schools that Mastery has taken over have seen reading and math levels nearly double –- in some cases, triple. Chaka Fattah is here, so he knows what I’m talking about. One school called Pickett went from just 14 percent of students being proficient in math to almost 70 percent. (Applause.) Now -- and here’s the kicker -- at the same time academic performance improved, violence dropped by 80 percent -– 80 percent. And that’s no coincidence. (Applause.)

Now, if a school like Mastery can do it, if Pickett can do it, every troubled school can do it. But that means we’re going to have to shake some things up. Setting high standards, common standards, empowering students to meet them; partnering with our teachers to achieve excellence in the classroom; educating our children -- all of them -- to graduate ready for college, ready for a career, ready to make most of their lives -- none of this should be controversial. There should be a fuss if we weren’t doing these things. There should be a fuss if Arne Duncan wasn’t trying to shake things up.

[w4rma]

39. laugh. (nt)

[Radical Activist]

40. Only felt like reading the subject line? n/t

[Recursion]

59. "an independent public school"

Thank you, Mr. President, for pointing that out.

[Brickbat]

41. Well, he hasn't so far, so I'm saying NO.

It's that simple.

[Blue_In_AK]

47. It doesn't seem like it.

[Dappleganger]

49. As long as Arne Duncan is in charge of public education, that would be a big fat

HELL NO.

[GreenArrow]

83. To be fair, Arne Duncan

is only doing the bidding of his boss, Barack Obama. Whose bidding Obama is doing, is anyone's guess, but so far as public education is concerned, it's pretty clear he intends to destroy it.

[yurbud]

53. it doesn't look like it. He will fund better than Bush, but the price is accepting the drive toward

privatization, so the rich can profit from what used to be part of the commons.

Clearly, to rise to the top in DC, you have to be willing to let the rich do whatever they want up to killing us and prying out our fillings to melt down.

[MichiganVote]

87. For what? The American deam for kids now consists of a McDonald position.

None of these politicians, including Obama, see a need for much to happen in education beyond a 5th grade reading and Math level. Local control? Forget it. The impetus is for Federal control from New York city to the smallest burg in a rural area. Some of this thinking could be good but most will be bad.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. No

[bvar22]

89. Only if Public Education commits a War Crime,

then Public Education will benefit from the full protection of the Obama Administration.

[MissDeeds]

93. +1

Interesting who he chooses to protect and who he throws under the bus.

[cjbgreen]

94. Corporate Interest and Obama

This from Bill Gates and friends
Gates Foundation provides $30 MM credit support agreement to secure $300 MM in charter school facility financing

11 Nov 2009
Applies innovative financing model to address the needs and challenges of charter school expansion in Houston

KIPP Houston to use initial $67 million in financing to expand facilities to meet increasing demand for high-quality public school education

Contact:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Tel: [phone] | [e-mail]

Steve Mancini, KIPP Houston
Tel: [phone] | [e-mail]

Elise Balboni, LISC
Tel: [phone] | [e-mail]

For Immediate Release:
November 11, 2009


SEATTLE and HOUSTON,(November 11, 2009)—The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation today announced that it will provide a $30 million credit support agreement to help secure $300million in tax-exempt bond issuance to further high-quality public charter school expansion in Houston. It represents the first time a private foundation has backed charter school facility bonds at this scale.

Board of Directors
Robert E. Rubin (Chair)
Former U.S. Treasury Secretary
Council on Foreign Relations
New York, N.Y.
Board chair since 1999

Greg Belinfanti
Partner
One Equity Partners
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2010 Tom Nides
Chief Operating and Administrative Officer
Morgan Stanley
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2010
Kelly Caffarelli
President
The Home Depot Foundation
Atlanta, Ga.
Board member since 2010 Ronald Phillips
President
Coastal Enterprises
Wiscasset, Maine
Board member since 2002
Lisa Cashin
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2007 Andrew Plepler
Global Corporate Social Responsibility Executive
Bank of America
Charlotte, N.C.
Board member since 2008
Mary Crego
Senior Vice President
State Farm
Bloomington, Ill.
Board member since 2010 Rey Ramsey
President & CEO
TechNet
Washington, D.C.
Board member since 2002
Larry H. Dale
Chairman
The National Equity Fund, Inc.
Denver, Colo.
Board member since 1998 Don Randel
President
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2006
Pamela P. Flaherty
Director
Corporate Citizenship, Citi
President & CEO
Citi Foundation
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 1996 Rip Rapson
President & CEO
The Kresge Foundation
Troy, Mich.
Board member since 2006
Lisa Glover
Senior VP & Director of Community Affairs
U.S. Bank
Milwaukee, Wis
Board member since 2010 Colvin W. Grannum
President
Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Board member since 2001
Michael Rubinger
President & CEO
Local Initiatives Support Corp.
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 1999 Antonia Hernandez
President
California Community Foundation
Los Angeles, Calif.
Board member since 2007
George H. Walker
Chief Executive Officer
Neuberger Investment Management
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2006 Kevin Johnson
Mayor
City of Sacramento
Sacramento, Calif.
Board member since 2006
Seth H. Waugh
Chief Executive Officer
Deutsche Bank Americas
New York, N.Y.
Board member since 2002 Linda K. Knight
Executive Vice President & Treasurer
Fannie Mae
Washington, D.C.
Board member since 2007
Bernard Winograd
Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Businesses
Prudential Financial, Inc.
Newark, N.J.
Board member since 2008 Lynette Lee
Executive Director (retired)
East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation
Oakland, Calif.
Board member since 2007

[cjbgreen]

95. Lobbyists!

Here is a look at the Center for Education Reform and their Board. Take a look at their score card for governors while you are at it. http://capwiz.com/edreform/issues/?style=D

Kara Cheseby is a General Partner with Rock Creek Investment Partners, LLC. She was a Vice President of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. from 1997 to June 2008. Kara earned her bachelor’s degrees in Economics and Russian from Duke University.

Angus Davis is the co-founder of Tellme Networks, now a Microsoft subsidiary, where he is responsible for product and technology strategy. Angus is Chairman of Best for Kids, a Rhode Island education reform advocacy organization, and he serves on the Rhode Island Board of Regents. He lives in Providence, Rhode Island.

Donald Hense serves as Chairman of Friendship Public Charter Schools located in Washington, DC, and is the former Chairman and CEO of Friendship House Association, a non-profit community-based social and economic development agency working in South Washington, DC.

Gisele Huff is the Executive Director of the Jaquelin Hume Foundation, which supports and advances education reform efforts nationwide. Prior to her work with the Foundation, Ms. Huff was an executive with University High School in San Francisco and worked with several other philanthropic efforts.

Jerry Hume (Chairman Emeritus) is the Chairman of the Board of the San Francisco-based Basic American, Inc. He serves on the boards of the National Academy of Sciences and the Foundation for Teaching Economics. Mr. Hume was a California State Board of Education member and was also active with the California Business Roundtable.

Robert Johnston founded Johnston Associates, Inc. (JAI), in 1968. Since then, JAI has launched several companies in the healthcare field, predominately pharmaceutical companies, around unique and commercially promising technologies and funds them in cooperation with other venture capitalists. Bob also founded and funds Educational Ventures, a foundation focusing on innovative methods of improving the educational system, such as vouchers and charter schools.

Ray Smart is the President of the Smart Family Foundation in Wilton, Connecticut.

Chris Whittle is founder and chairman of Edison Schools, Inc. Chris is also the author of Crash Course: Imaging a Better Future For Public Education, published in 2005.

[Barack2theFuture]

97. no,

unless you mean "protect" it as a market that will be available to his and Arne's privatized buddies.