Open debate: what do you think would happen if all (US) education was privatized?

[Barb_]

Charter schools are not government run, only government funded (if they were run by the public school system they would be magnet schools). To quote Diane Ravitch, "charter schools are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations."

 

I'm not saying public schools should get a pass (did I say this?), I'm just saying lets not strip resources from them. They don't have enough to begin with. 

 

I've heard this argument before, and I've heard it applied to the homeschooling population as well (but curiously, not the the private school population).  Maybe you can help me understand your thinking?  How does choosing an alternative form of school strip dollars from public schools?  Everyone who pays property taxes buys into the local schools whether their kids are using them or not.  So there is a finite number of dollars to go around.  Charter schools receive on average around 4K less per student than their traditional government run publics.  Every student choosing to attend a charter eases overcrowding in the local public school, but that child receives only a portion of that funding (and homeschoolers in most states receive none) leaving a larger slice of the pie for someone else. How would the public schools absorb all of the children who currently attend charters?  I know when we first moved here to AZ 11-12 years ago, I spoke to the principle of the local elementary school who also happened to be my neighbor.  She was so stressed because her teachers were trying to absorb in some cases up to 38 children in one class.  There were kids without desks lining the floor at the front of the room.  This doesn't happen anymore.

 

I'm not arguing for 100% privatization, but Charters have their place and serve an important purpose and I believe the fear of sucking dollars from public schools is overblown.

[QueenCat]

Being a working parent vs a stay at home parent is not about luxury. While my sample size is low, every working parent I know, who is in a two income family, will say that they could not possibly live without their vacations, their luxury SUVs, etc. Their extras would easily pay for them to be at home. If the lowest earning member of the family earns enough to cover the cost of working, child care, tutors, etc, then the highest earning one earns enough to support the family. It all just comes down to priorities. Now, I know this is not true 100% of the time, but I resent the notion that having an at-home parent is just a luxury or someone is lucky to have it. It is a sacrifice, a sacrifice that many are not willing to make. And while I am sure there are plenty of people out there that legitmately cannot afford to have an at-home parent, I have not met anyone like that yet. But I have met plenty of one income families that give up a lot to make sure it can happen.

 

Some of us like our luxuries. Nothing wrong with that. I've almost always worked part-time once the youngest was around 5-6, simply to have more money to vacation than we would on dh's salary alone. Priorities are different between households but one set is not necessarily better than another set of priorities, just different. Granted, I'm not referring to when priorities mean children aren't getting what they need or abuse is occurring because of the way people parent.

[creekland]

I've heard this argument before, and I've heard it applied to the homeschooling population as well (but curiously, not the the private school population).  Maybe you can help me understand your thinking?  How does choosing an alternative form of school strip dollars from public schools?  Everyone who pays property taxes buys into the local schools whether their kids are using them or not.  So there is a finite number of dollars to go around.  Charter schools receive on average around 4K less per student than their traditional government run publics.  Every student choosing to attend a charter eases overcrowding in the local public school, but that child receives only a portion of that funding (and homeschoolers in most states receive none) leaving a larger slice of the pie for someone else. How would the public schools absorb all of the children who currently attend charters?  I know when we first moved here to AZ 11-12 years ago, I spoke to the principle of the local elementary school who also happened to be my neighbor.  She was so stressed because her teachers were trying to absorb in some cases up to 38 children in one class.  There were kids without desks lining the floor at the front of the room.  This doesn't happen anymore.

 

I'm not arguing for 100% privatization, but Charters have their place and serve an important purpose and I believe the fear of sucking dollars from public schools is overblown.

 

Not who you asked, but the problem comes in when the Charters take the "good" students (and their state and local money follows them to the charter) leaving the "expensive" students at the public school.  All kids might get some sort of K-12 education at a public school, but it doesn't cost the same per student.  If the "good" students all leave and only the "expensive" are left behind, but with less money to provide for them, it causes quite a stretch in the budget.

 

This doesn't get affected quite as much from homeschooling from what I've seen.  Just as many homeschool their "expensive" kids as "good" kids AND no money is pulled from them if school funding is local rather than state-wide based upon school population.  When our school has to send a special need kid elsewhere due to behavior (or whatever), their money goes with them - more than an "average" student costs the district and far more than a "good" student costs.

 

When I went to the fancy private school in 10th grade, there were no "expensive" students.  There never would be.  One had to test to get in and behave to stay in.

[Barb_]

That's a good point, Creekland, but that's one reason charters receive thousands less per student.  They do tend to have a smaller special needs population, and that's one of the arguments for underfunding.  In my experience, many students in charters aren't the "good" students.  They aren't the most expensive students, but they are often depressed, the bullied, the mentally ill, the kids who have mentally checked out and are failing, have fallen in with bad peers...these kids are often moved to charters as a last ditch effort because the class sizes are usually smaller and some have a more supportive environment.  I've seen many of those kids bloom once they're moved (we helped get a classical charter started in the west valley a few years ago and my kids attended for a year). 

 

You probably remember back in 2003, I think it was?  ...the big push in PA to change the homeschooling law.  I remember the editorials and how people were appalled that so many people in the state homeschooled their kids and were robbing the schools of funds.  I know the discussion of homeschooling and funding muddies the waters a little, but I think there's a misconception in the larger population as to how taxes fund public schools.

 

Here's an article that discusses this a little.  I did a quick google search to see if memory served. This is from 2014, but I think it's still pretty accurate:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/charter-school-funding-_n_5242159.html

Edited September 4, 2017 by Barb_

[snowbeltmom]

I do not believe the schools in Finland spend as much money on sports for the elite few that the schools in the US do. Just imagine if the footballers had the budget that the current science and math teachers and have the science and math teachers were paid what the football staff is paid. Our schools would rock!

 

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff?  Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

[Bootsie]

Not who you asked, but the problem comes in when the Charters take the "good" students (and their state and local money follows them to the charter) leaving the "expensive" students at the public school.  All kids might get some sort of K-12 education at a public school, but it doesn't cost the same per student.  If the "good" students all leave and only the "expensive" are left behind, but with less money to provide for them, it causes quite a stretch in the budget.

 

This doesn't get affected quite as much from homeschooling from what I've seen.  Just as many homeschool their "expensive" kids as "good" kids AND no money is pulled from them if school funding is local rather than state-wide based upon school population.  When our school has to send a special need kid elsewhere due to behavior (or whatever), their money goes with them - more than an "average" student costs the district and far more than a "good" student costs.

 

When I went to the fancy private school in 10th grade, there were no "expensive" students.  There never would be.  One had to test to get in and behave to stay in.

The type of student population going to charter schools seems to vary quite a bit from state to state.  I have heard of a number of situations in my state where the public school district is concerned that a student will bring down their standardized test scores and tell the parents that they have a great opportunity at a charter school that will better meet the needs of their student.  In this case, the public schools are trying to dump off some of the more expensive students (or the ones that will hurt their ratings) into the charter school system.  In other states, I have heard of the opposite happening.

 

The "average student" probably costs the districts less than the upper end students--they do not require gifted programs, advanced labs, etc.  

[Barb_]

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff?  Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

 

Yeah, I don't know that anyone is getting rich coaching football.  I'd need to see some hard statistics to back that up.

[regentrude]

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff?  Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

At the college level, the football coach is, in many states, the highest paid public employee. In our state, the coach earns over 4 times as much as the president of the public university system, and over 40 times as much as an assistant professor.

 

And this is what I found about TX high schools:

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/dfwvarsity/prep-football/article97549282.html

"The average head coach’s salary at the Fort Worth area’s biggest high schools was $98,041 in 2015-16, according to information obtained by the Star-Telegram through the Texas Public Information Act. That’s more than double the average wage of $46,560 in Texas.

Thirty-four coaches made more than $100,000, led by Bob Wager of Arlington Martin and Anthony Criss of Arlington Sam Houston, who took in $113,553 each."

 

This country has its priorities seriously screwed.

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Barb_]

At the college level, the football coach is, in many states, the highest paid public employee. In our state, the coach earns over 4 times as much as the president of the public university system, and over 40 times as much as an assistant professor.

 

That I would believe, but I don't think it holds true at the high school level?

[regentrude]

That I would believe, but I don't think it holds true at the high school level?

 

just added to my previous post

The average head coach’s salary at the Fort Worth area’s biggest high schools was $98,041 in 2015-16, according to information obtained by the Star-Telegram through the Texas Public Information Act. That’s more than double the average wage of $46,560 in Texas.

Thirty-four coaches made more than $100,000, led by Bob Wager of Arlington Martin and Anthony Criss of Arlington Sam Houston, who took in $113,553 each.

[Bootsie]

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff?  Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

In my district in Texas, it is over $100,000 per year.  

[Bootsie]

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff?  Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

And not to be outdone by Allen, Texas's $60million football stadium, McKinney Texas is putting in a $70 million football stadium (which includes a jumbo, high-def screen larger than some NFL stadiums)

[regentrude]

And not to be outdone by Allen, Texas's $60million football stadium, McKinney Texas is putting in a $70 million football stadium (which includes a jumbo, high-def screen larger than some NFL stadiums)

 

Because, priorities.

I will never understand this country.

[Barb_]

just added to my previous post

The average head coach’s salary at the Fort Worth area’s biggest high schools was $98,041 in 2015-16, according to information obtained by the Star-Telegram through the Texas Public Information Act. That’s more than double the average wage of $46,560 in Texas.

Thirty-four coaches made more than $100,000, led by Bob Wager of Arlington Martin and Anthony Criss of Arlington Sam Houston, who took in $113,553 each.

 

Fair enough.  I stand corrected.

[hepatica]

I've heard this argument before, and I've heard it applied to the homeschooling population as well (but curiously, not the the private school population).  Maybe you can help me understand your thinking?  How does choosing an alternative form of school strip dollars from public schools?  Everyone who pays property taxes buys into the local schools whether their kids are using them or not.  So there is a finite number of dollars to go around.  Charter schools receive on average around 4K less per student than their traditional government run publics.  Every student choosing to attend a charter eases overcrowding in the local public school, but that child receives only a portion of that funding (and homeschoolers in most states receive none) leaving a larger slice of the pie for someone else. How would the public schools absorb all of the children who currently attend charters?  I know when we first moved here to AZ 11-12 years ago, I spoke to the principle of the local elementary school who also happened to be my neighbor.  She was so stressed because her teachers were trying to absorb in some cases up to 38 children in one class.  There were kids without desks lining the floor at the front of the room.  This doesn't happen anymore.

 

I'm not arguing for 100% privatization, but Charters have their place and serve an important purpose and I believe the fear of sucking dollars from public schools is overblown.

 

I don't disagree that there may be a place for strictly regulated, transparent, not for profit, innovative charter schools. And, I guess it's not fair to say that the situation is the same everywhere. But, it does seem that many public schools have experienced the money spent on charter students as a drain on resources.

 

While per student funding is an accounting measure, it is sort of meaningless. Schools don't spend x amount per student. That's just an average. If a student leaves for a charter, a school can't just automatically cut it's expenses by that amount. Maybe the school will eventually be half the size it is now, for example, but it still has to maintain the same building, run the same bus routes, etc. And, this doesn't account for the fact that a good percentage of charter students were not originally even attending the public school. This certainly happened in Pennsylvania. I think something like 30% of charter students in Philadelphia were never in the schools to begin with. They were homeschooled or attended other private schools. So it is my understanding that Philadelphia lost that per student money without a commensurate decrease in students.

 

And in NYC, even though charters are receiving less money per student. many of those charters are operating in district buildings, so when you deduct the building costs they basically have the same amount of money to spend per student. 

 

These may be shorter term budget problems for the schools, but I think it is fair to say that many school districts have experienced the increase in charters as a financial hit. Maybe they are wrong. I'm not sure?

[Barb_]

It occurs to me again that the experience of charters are very different depending on one's region, which is probably why there's a lot of talking past one another on the national level.

[Bootsie]

Are we underfunding education in the US?  We spend over 25% more than the average OECD country spends per student for elementary and secondary education.  While the average is over $11,000 per student it varies widely across the US.  New York spends over $20,000 per student, about twice the national average.  Utah and Idaho spend less than $7000 per student.  

[snowbeltmom]

just added to my previous post

The average head coach’s salary at the Fort Worth area’s biggest high schools was $98,041 in 2015-16, according to information obtained by the Star-Telegram through the Texas Public Information Act. That’s more than double the average wage of $46,560 in Texas.

Thirty-four coaches made more than $100,000, led by Bob Wager of Arlington Martin and Anthony Criss of Arlington Sam Houston, who took in $113,553 each.

 

Does he also teach in the classroom or is that salary only for coaching football?  My district gives classroom teachers first priority when filling coaching positions.  If no classroom teacher applies, the search is open to the public.  The pay for coaching is around $4000 per season, which isn't very much when you consider how many hours the coach needs to devote to the team. 

 

I could understand $98K per year if the coach was also a classroom teacher in a wealthy district and had a lot of seniority.

 

[creekland]

The type of student population going to charter schools seems to vary quite a bit from state to state.  I have heard of a number of situations in my state where the public school district is concerned that a student will bring down their standardized test scores and tell the parents that they have a great opportunity at a charter school that will better meet the needs of their student.  In this case, the public schools are trying to dump off some of the more expensive students (or the ones that will hurt their ratings) into the charter school system.  In other states, I have heard of the opposite happening.

 

The "average student" probably costs the districts less than the upper end students--they do not require gifted programs, advanced labs, etc.  

 

I'm certainly not anti-charter as they are different than private and often CAN better meet the needs of some students/families.  When they can, they are a good use of public dollars IMO.  But it doesn't always mean the public school they came from can lose all of those dollars and still provide the same education as before.  With a handful of students, sure.  With oodles, not so much because it's not always the outliers who leave.

 

I am 100% against all schooling becoming private.  I don't see how that will solve anything TBH.

 

That's a good point, Creekland, but that's one reason charters receive thousands less per student.  They do tend to have a smaller special needs population, and that's one of the arguments for underfunding.  In my experience, many students in charters aren't the "good" students.  They aren't the most expensive students, but they are often depressed, the bullied, the mentally ill, the kids who have mentally checked out and are failing, have fallen in with bad peers...these kids are often moved to charters as a last ditch effort because the class sizes are usually smaller and some have a more supportive environment.  I've seen many of those kids bloom once they're moved (we helped get a classical charter started in the west valley a few years ago and my kids attended for a year). 

 

I'm using "good" from a financial perspective, not necessarily an academic one.  There often isn't much of a cost difference between levels of classes (how we differentiate college bound from not in my district).  There can be a difference for low IQ and there is always a difference for Special Needs, but bullied kids are rarely a behavior problem requiring extra cost.  It's the bullies who see the guidance counselor and detention chaperone more often.

[creekland]

Are we underfunding education in the US?  We spend over 25% more than the average OECD country spends per student for elementary and secondary education.  While the average is over $11,000 per student it varies widely across the US.  New York spends over $20,000 per student, about twice the national average.  Utah and Idaho spend less than $7000 per student.  

 

According to our exchange students, US schools also provide a ton more than their home countries including things like sports, music, art, clubs, school nurses, and lunch.  I'm sure there are more things, but those come to mind at the moment as the largest noticeable differences.  Do we, as a country (not individuals) want to give all those up and have them available only to the wealthy?  I doubt it.  Way too many kids select their college based upon how good the sports team is even now.  "Good" academics are often (falsely) correlated by how good the sports teams are.  (This is true even if they don't play the sport.)

[MBM]

That I would believe, but I don't think it holds true at the high school level?

One of the highest paid public high school teachers in our former suburb is the football coach. $130k but not sure that includes coaching as well. To be fair, he teaches shop class. This is the high school just north of Evanston, btw.

 

Other schools, probably not the same.

Edited September 4, 2017 by MBM

[regentrude]

According to our exchange students, US schools also provide a ton more than their home countries including things like sports, music, art, clubs, school nurses, and lunch.  I'm sure there are more things, but those come to mind at the moment as the largest noticeable differences.  Do we, as a country (not individuals) want to give all those up and have them available only to the wealthy?  I doubt it.  

 

You can have sports and music and clubs that are community based and affordable. We have that in Germany. Kids play sports, sing in choirs, learn to play instruments. The programs just aren't affiliated with the public school. They may sometimes use school facilities after classes are over.

 

I would very much prefer schools to hire competent math teachers over coaches.

Edited September 4, 2017 by regentrude

[Bootsie]

According to our exchange students, US schools also provide a ton more than their home countries including things like sports, music, art, clubs, school nurses, and lunch.  I'm sure there are more things, but those come to mind at the moment as the largest noticeable differences.  Do we, as a country (not individuals) want to give all those up and have them available only to the wealthy?  I doubt it.  Way too many kids select their college based upon how good the sports team is even now.  "Good" academics are often (falsely) correlated by how good the sports teams are.  (This is true even if they don't play the sport.)

But not having the public school system provide sports, music, and other activities, does not necessarily mean that we would give them up and they would only be available to the wealthy.  I would argue that there are better ways to make those items available to all in the community than to make them available through the public school system.  You can go to a small village in Austria and find a wonderful swimming complex, for example.  There is a swim team, swim lessons, exercise programs for senior citizens, etc.  It is run by the community for the community, not by a huge public school bureaucracy.  It isn't open to some children in town because they live on one side of a school boundary and not to other children because they are on the other side.  There is a local band; young people can play in the band along with their grandfather or their next door neighbor.  I think that does a much better job of promoting life-long participation in activities and the community than our focus on high school activities in the US does.  

 

I would prefer to see the schools focus on academics, and not focus on being sports clubs, nutrition programs, health programs, etc.  I think other institutions would be better at focusing on those activities.  I also think it starts giving the school district too much power over the young people's lives when it becomes all intertwined.  Should a student who cheats in Engilsh class not be allowed to play in the basketball game on Saturday night?  What about a student who drinks a beer at a party on Saturday night, should they be able to be in the play on Friday night?  Should the school administration be monitoring what a student places on Facebook in the privacy of their own home using their computer be suspended from school on Monday morning and not allowed to attend math class?

[Caroline]

I know Texans love their football, but what is the salary of the football staff? Are they being paid more than the classroom teachers?

 

My state is also pretty crazy about football, but our district's football coaches would make more money working at McDonalds than they make coaching football.

 

The head football coach at a local school gets paid the same salary as a classroom teacher to run our almost nonexistent in school suspension plus an extra $30k.

[snowbeltmom]

The head football coach at a local school gets paid the same salary as a classroom teacher to run our almost nonexistent in school suspension plus an extra $30k.

That is ridiculous.  Ugh.

[hepatica]

Are we underfunding education in the US?  We spend over 25% more than the average OECD country spends per student for elementary and secondary education.  While the average is over $11,000 per student it varies widely across the US.  New York spends over $20,000 per student, about twice the national average.  Utah and Idaho spend less than $7000 per student.  

 

But again, these are not really per student expenses. Buildings and salaries and insurance etc are more costly in NY than in Utah or Idaho. NY has unions. Charter teachers in NY love the unions, because their salaries are often based on what public school teachers are getting paid. NY has a way more diverse student body than Idaho. The sheer number of languages spoken by NYC school children is phenomenal.

[unsinkable]

Schools got involved with sports to control the children. School teams were started to get kids off the streets and into schools.

[frogger]

Not who you asked, but the problem comes in when the Charters take the "good" students (and their state and local money follows them to the charter) leaving the "expensive" students at the public school. All kids might get some sort of K-12 education at a public school, but it doesn't cost the same per student. If the "good" students all leave and only the "expensive" are left behind, but with less money to provide for them, it causes quite a stretch in the budget.

 

This doesn't get affected quite as much from homeschooling from what I've seen. Just as many homeschool their "expensive" kids as "good" kids AND no money is pulled from them if school funding is local rather than state-wide based upon school population. When our school has to send a special need kid elsewhere due to behavior (or whatever), their money goes with them - more than an "average" student costs the district and far more than a "good" student costs.

 

When I went to the fancy private school in 10th grade, there were no "expensive" students. There never would be. One had to test to get in and behave to stay in.

I would have to see how the schools are structured where you live. I know one of the reasons our local districts work so hard to enroll homeschoolers is that they get more funding for them. They are constantly advertising and even try to drag them from other programs. This is because they get funds from the state and some from the Fed's depending on if you have a special needs or low income student. My sister in law is getting very tired of the advertising. They discovered her because she needed special services for her preschool children. Now they are all chasing her because they will make extra money off her children which both will get special ed funding, of which she would only get a small portion. This is more the homeschooling type charters but it really helps the school districts get extra funds.

 

I realize that you are talking about b&m schools but the structure and allowances can be set up in a variety of ways.

[creekland]

You can have sports and music and clubs that are community based and affordable. We have that in Germany. Kids play sports, sing in choirs, learn to play instruments. The programs just aren't affiliated with the public school. They may sometimes use school facilities after classes are over.

 

I would very much prefer schools to hire competent math teachers over coaches.

 

It could be different, of course, but FWIW, I have yet to hear it as a negative from any of our exchange students that we have them affiliated with our schools.  THEY are the ones who are saying it's cool that anyone can participate and not just a small portion of society.  They are teens and don't know everything about how things work, of course, but that's their comparison - from Europe to Asia to South America.

 

We have community programs for some things (esp popular sports) available to all, but they tend to have higher fees are involved, esp for travel teams.  How much would we add in music, art, and free/reduced breakfasts and lunches?  I'm not sure.  I suspect in some areas, not much.  Then too, if a student's parent isn't involved to take advantage of what is out there, the kid is out of luck.  At school they can try something in gym/music/art class, fall in love, and continue from there.  That happens quite often actually.

[creekland]

I would have to see how the schools are structured where you live. I know one of the reasons our local districts work so hard to enroll homeschoolers is that they get more funding for them. They are constantly advertising and even try to drag them from other programs. This is because they get funds from the state and some from the Fed's depending on if you have a special needs or low income student. My sister in law is getting very tired of the advertising. They discovered her because she needed special services for her preschool children. Now they are all chasing her because they will make extra money off her children which both will get special ed funding, of which she would only get a small portion. This is more the homeschooling type charters but it really helps the school districts get extra funds.

 

I realize that you are talking about b&m schools but the structure and allowances can be set up in a variety of ways.

 

Yeah, we don't get that here.  Charter schools target homeschoolers with ads as they'll get more money for more students, but not ps - at least - not the district I'm in.

[HS Mom in NC]

Charter schools are not government run, only government funded (if they were run by the public school system they would be magnet schools). To quote Diane Ravitch, "charter schools are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations."

 

I'm not saying public schools should get a pass (did I say this?), I'm just saying lets not strip resources from them. They don't have enough to begin with. 

 

 

 

Charter schools are not government run, only government funded (if they were run by the public school system they would be magnet schools). To quote Diane Ravitch, "charter schools are part of a separate system, which has its own interests, its own lobbyists, its own separate advocacy organizations."

 

I'm not saying public schools should get a pass (did I say this?), I'm just saying lets not strip resources from them. They don't have enough to begin with. 

You said you don't believe in shutting down poor performing regular public schools.  I call that a free pass. Why are some people quick to say don't hold regular public schools accountable by shutting down poorly performing ones, but they want poorly performing public charter schools shut down? Most people who support public charter schools as one of many options like the idea that public charters can be shut down for poor performance specifically because resources are limited and children shouldn't continue in poor performing schools.  So why wouldn't someone want that to apply to poorly performing regular public schools?  How are children and taxpayers and society as a whole better off if poor performing regular public schools continue to fail children?  How is that logical or reasonable?

Public charters are run by the government to a lesser degree than regular public schools, but between the government entities granting charters permission to start, setting regulation, holding them accountable, able to shut them down, they are running them in many ways.  Public charters are not completely autonomous entities taking tax dollars and doing whatever they like. https://azcharters.org/about-charter-schools/

 

I've lived here during the boom too.  Between homeschoolers continuing to pay the exact same tax rates they would pay if their kids were attending government funded schools of any sort, and charters taking far fewer dollars per student, the public system should be thanking us that we helped avoid contributing to the overflow.

 

The last 20 years we've exploded in population and I lived in 2 new developments that didn't have a public school for several years.  Thousands of homes in densely populated suburbs filled within a couple of years and not enough  public elementary, Jr. High Schools were built fast enough to accommodate them.  It increased busing costs to deal with it because so many people had no school within walking distance or a short driving distance of mom and dad's place of employment meant more kids had to be bused.  Meanwhile the parents whose kids went the charter schools planned to drive them or in a minority of cases, take public buses because charters don't have school bus services. (My daughter's homeschool enrichment charter school  has a public bus stop near it some kids take.)

 

Now I don't know how it is in other places like NY and Chicago where, if I remember correctly, their populations are decreasing, and tax revenues go down when the population shrinks, so blaming it all on charters isn't fair.  When schools lose students to a population decline, they should have to consolidate because that's the reality of the situation. That's the thing about math, it doesn't care how we feel about it.  Schools space needs to be rethought for a post-Baby Boomer reality.  The birth rate is doing down in the US. Immigration looks like it's going down for at least this administration, who knows about the next.  It is what it is whether we like it or not, so we have to deal with the reality of the situation. Fewer kids in school means large campuses aren't the way to go anymore.

 

Populations fluctuate because we're more transient than ever, so space needs to be more flexible.  Around here some schools, probably mostly charters, are in retail type space that can be increased at another location or decreased and leased to businesses later if they fold. My daughter's Homeschool Enrichment Program meets at what I understand is a regular public school campus.  That campus was not at full capacity and is not part of the population boom. Now the campus is being fully utilized and the enrichment program can help with maintenance costs because they receive taxpayer funds.  That's innovation.

 

An inflexible mindset and rigid set up are actually at the root of many public education problems. Some people have decided, based on not much more than nostalgia, that public education needs to continue the way it always has because it's good intentioned and good intentions give you a free pass to continue the status quo in spite of ongoing problems.  It's a sacred cow, religiously maintained as is with cult-like devotion, rather than having a policy of adapting as necessary when appropriate. 

 

Business is better at innovation in general, and that's why people find the idea of privatization appealing.  However, education isn't the same as other products and services, so I think even if it's all or partly privatized, we still need those innovative ideas to run through some other filters like experienced teachers, experienced counselors, those knowledgeable about brain research, those knowledgeable in sub-cultural issues, etc. 

 

We also have to keep in mind that for every successful business out there, there are more businesses that have failed, so let's temper our expectations about privatization and for-profit options. I can see some possible benefits to hiring people good at solving business problems to come up with some proposals for public schools and seeing what they have to suggest.  I can also see the merit in having regular but unannounced audits by outside, professional  entities coming in and scouring public school use of funds, identifying waste and mismanagement and identifying which are the best fiscally run schools.  The good ones should get raises and put in charge of training new people to take over the bad ones whenever possible. Yes, we really should be able to fire ps employees when there's reason to do so.  Same with public charter schools.

 

With today's technology, we should be able to have government funded school administer 1 annual test that can track:

 

1. Set of skills taught in each year.

2. Which of those skills each child mastered each year

3. Record of previous test results.

4. Name of : teacher, school, district, state

and measure against:

 

A. Language(s) spoken in the home.

B. Parent/Guardian education level.

C. Parent and child involvement in the legal system: arrest record, prison record, CPS investigations, foster care placements, etc.

D. IEP information, cognitive/emotional challenge diagnosis

 

If you take what each kid mastered each year (numbered list) and weighed them against things that are beyond the teacher's control (alphabetized list) which make it harder for a child to learn, I think we could get a better sense of which schools are serving each local population better and which are serving them worse.  We have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Once we do, we can ask those doing better with a particular sub-set of a population to train those doing poorly or replace them if necessary.

 

 

[Guest]

According to our exchange students, US schools also provide a ton more than their home countries including things like sports, music, art, clubs, school nurses, and lunch. I'm sure there are more things, but those come to mind at the moment as the largest noticeable differences. Do we, as a country (not individuals) want to give all those up and have them available only to the wealthy? I doubt it. Way too many kids select their college based upon how good the sports team is even now. "Good" academics are often (falsely) correlated by how good the sports teams are. (This is true even if they don't play the sport.)

True, but IME, the sad thing about high school (public) sports is that not just anyone can play them. One of the perks I get from sending DS to a private school is that the competition for a place on the sports teams is low or non-existent. It was so good for him socially and emotionally to be on the varsity soccer and lacrosse teams this past year. In some ways, it kind of saved him. He felt part of something that mattered and it offered comraderie he wasn't getting otherwise. He is a decent athlete, but he could probably not have made the soccer team at public school and he most definitely would not have made LAX. There is so much grooming of kids for D-1 sports in this area that high school sports aren't really available to all. Rec leagues are what a lot of people turn to because their kid just wants to play but can't compete at the public school.

 

P.S. My SIl was just telling me that she is looking to put her son into the same school as my son for high school. This was THE reason she cited. "He does not have a prayer of ever playing baseball for ______________ high school, and it is also doubtful that he could play Lacrosse." AND her kid is a good athlete! He just isn't a state champ level good athlete.

 

*I'm not suggesting I have a solution; just saying that, for sports where I live, this tends to be wealth-related yet again.

[creekland]

*I'm not suggesting I have a solution; just saying that, for sports where I live, this tends to be wealth-related yet again.

 

There's no doubt that for everything, those with means have better opportunities.  But it is nice that in many places (like my school) the champions in sports, music, and/or art are not always those who are well connected financially.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, we don't get that here. Charter schools target homeschoolers with ads as they'll get more money for more students, but not ps - at least - not the district I'm in.

My district has to reimburse the charter school for every in-district child that decides to go to a charter. So they rather you homeschool than use a public charter. They get a certain percentage of the property tax, close to 50% of property tax collected.

 

My nearest school districts are paid per kid so they are very strict about attendance as it affects the amount of money they get.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Arcadia

[Bootsie]

It could be different, of course, but FWIW, I have yet to hear it as a negative from any of our exchange students that we have them affiliated with our schools.  THEY are the ones who are saying it's cool that anyone can participate and not just a small portion of society.  They are teens and don't know everything about how things work, of course, but that's their comparison - from Europe to Asia to South America.

 

We have community programs for some things (esp popular sports) available to all, but they tend to have higher fees are involved, esp for travel teams.  How much would we add in music, art, and free/reduced breakfasts and lunches?  I'm not sure.  I suspect in some areas, not much.  Then too, if a student's parent isn't involved to take advantage of what is out there, the kid is out of luck.  At school they can try something in gym/music/art class, fall in love, and continue from there.  That happens quite often actually.

Maybe it is different where you live, but where I live, only a small portion of society can participate in many of the sports programs because they are affiliated with the schools.  If you are 19 years old, you can't use the swimming pool because you graduated from high school.  If you are 14 years old, you can't use the track because you aren't old enough to be in high school yet.  If you live on that side of the drainage ditch, you can't use the new $60 million football stadium because you live in the wrong neighborhood.  You can't use the school gym because you didn't make the basketball team (when the kids whose parents paid $100 per hour private coaches over a number of years did).  If you are struggling in math, you can't play your instrument this week because your grade in math isn't high enough. If your local public high school doesn't meet your academic needs because you are very gifted in mathematics and your parents homeschool you, you can't access the weight room.

[frogger]

Maybe it is different where you live, but where I live, only a small portion of society can participate in many of the sports programs because they are affiliated with the schools. If you are 19 years old, you can't use the swimming pool because you graduated from high school. If you are 14 years old, you can't use the track because you aren't old enough to be in high school yet. If you live on that side of the drainage ditch, you can't use the new $60 million football stadium because you live in the wrong neighborhood. You can't use the school gym because you didn't make the basketball team (when the kids whose parents paid $100 per hour private coaches over a number of years did). If you are struggling in math, you can't play your instrument this week because your grade in math isn't high enough. If your local public high school doesn't meet your academic needs because you are very gifted in mathematics and your parents homeschool you, you can't access the weight room.

:( That sounds really sad and inefficient. I complain about our pools and a few other things but if school's not in session others can use the track, rent rooms, and the pool has times opened to the public. Of course, the pools are actually owned by the city and just attached to the schools.

 

We also have community rec leagues for things like soccer and basketball and even football. My boys took a mountain biking class through a local club the only fee is to join the club which is small and per family not per kid. Fund raising has put in most of our cross country ski trails and single track. My church has a lady who does free choir during holidays and now a preschool and elementary music camp for kids for free. I just can't imagine a place where the public schools do it all.

 

ETA: Of course this means people have to volunteer and donate to make it all happen. No one volunteers, then there is no program.

Edited September 5, 2017 by frogger

[snowbeltmom]

The sporting facilities at my public school are not open to the public, either.  Considering tax dollars pay for these facilities, I think they should be open to the public when school is not in session.

[frogger]

Yeah, we don't get that here. Charter schools target homeschoolers with ads as they'll get more money for more students, but not ps - at least - not the district I'm in.

Just to make sure I'm clear, your charter schools aren't part of your school district? If they are public schools do they have their own district or does the state deal with them individually?

[Rosie_0801]

Are we underfunding education in the US?  We spend over 25% more than the average OECD country spends per student for elementary and secondary education.  While the average is over $11,000 per student it varies widely across the US.  New York spends over $20,000 per student, about twice the national average.  Utah and Idaho spend less than $7000 per student.  

 

You have a lot more administrative staff than we do here in Oz.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The sporting facilities at my public school are not open to the public, either.  Considering tax dollars pay for these facilities, I think they should be open to the public when school is not in session.

 

Why?  We don't open other public buildings when they are closed.

 

FWIW, there are significant insurance/liability restrictions on allowing access to facilities without school personnel present.  Most policies that cover school facilities only cover sanctioned activities and the participants.  In most states, school facilities can be rented (exact policies can vary but in my area the rentals are relatively cheap/free) but additional insurance covering the school system for liability must be provided.

[Arcadia]

Are we underfunding education in the US? We spend over 25% more than the average OECD country spends per student for elementary and secondary education.

Special education including gifted education is underfunded in the US compared to my home country. That had led to a lot of pass the bucket for special education taking place locally between school and health insurance. Funding models do vary among local school districts.

 

My home country's individual school budget is for kids that would need very little aid. They do not mainstream most special needs kids. When they talk about expenditure per child, they are referring to mainstream students. The special needs budget is separate. My late down syndrome cousin attends a special school which teaches him as much English and Math as he can learn and then a lot of life skills and VoTech classes. His education expenses if included in public school expenses would make the cost per pupil very high.

[Barb_]

Just to make sure I'm clear, your charter schools aren't part of your school district? If they are public schools do they have their own district or does the state deal with them individually?

IIRC, Pennsylvania is unique in that everything about the schools is decided super-locally. There are different rules for a lot of things from district to district and each superintendent runs his or her own little fiefdom :) That's why the homeschooling law was so bad. It had all of these different accountability measures in place (testing and minimum maximum ages and curriculum and attendance and portfolio review you had to pay for and a second portfolio review by the local school superintendent), and they were interpreted and implemented differently depending on the district superintendent. I believe that has changed now l, but moving to Arizona was an eye opening experience after spending five years there.

 

I'm politically liberal and support the idea of public schools but having lived in seven states has made me realize charters are a really important part of the big picture in many areas.

[frogger]

IIRC, Pennsylvania is unique in that everything about the schools is decided super-locally. There are different rules for a lot of things from district to district and each superintendent runs his or her own little fiefdom :) That's why the homeschooling law was so bad. It had all of these different accountability measures in place (testing and minimum maximum ages and curriculum and attendance and portfolio review you had to pay for and a second portfolio review by the local school superintendent), and they were interpreted and implemented differently depending on the district superintendent. I believe that has changed now l, but moving to Arizona was an eye opening experience after spending five years there.

 

I'm politically liberal and support the idea of public schools but having lived in seven states has made me realize charters are a really important part of the big picture in many areas.

I have a feeling that location does make a difference on how one feels about charters.

[SKL]

But that has to be extremely expensive.

If a regular public school spends an average of, say, 10k per student, a much higher amount than that is spent to educate a student with disabilities. And students who need resources that exceed the public schools' need even more.

How is a family supposed to pay that when education is privatized?

 

Again, the "who pays" part of the equation does not depend on whether the services are provided by a for-profit or government entity.

 

In my area, there are excellent private schools for children with autism and other issues that make learning in a typical school / classroom inappropriate for the individual child.  There is also a very significant state scholarship that pays tens of thousands of dollars per year to educate these children at private schools.  The parents have a role in advocating for their kids to get evaluated for admission to these excellent private schools, but the parents do not have to pay the money.  Possibly that is not true for rich people, I don't know, but my friends with kids in those schools are not rich (nor poor), and they do not pay.

 

If this is how "privatization" looks, I don't think it's a problem.

 

 

 

ETA of course many of those kids could probably attend public school if that was what their parents preferred.  But the parents are thrilled for the option of the private school. 

 

There may be a middle population where the parents feel the kids would benefit from being in a regular classroom with a 1:1 aide or similar, but this option is not generally available in private schools currently - it isn't necessary since public schools provide it.  If there were no public schools, I don't see why the government could not pay for private schools to have aides for these kids.  Private schools already get government money for things like Chapter I tutoring, subsidized lunch, etc.  They do accept some special needs.  If they could get a 1:1 aide without paying for it out of tuition, they would probably accept kids in that situation.

Edited September 5, 2017 by SKL

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Again, the "who pays" part of the equation does not depend on whether the services are provided by a for-profit or government entity.

 

In my area, there are excellent private schools for children with autism and other issues that make learning in a typical school / classroom inappropriate for the individual child.  There is also a very significant state scholarship that pays tens of thousands of dollars per year to educate these children at private schools.  The parents have a role in advocating for their kids to get evaluated for admission to these excellent private schools, but the parents do not have to pay the money.  Possibly that is not true for rich people, I don't know, but my friends with kids in those schools are not rich (nor poor), and they do not pay.

 

If this is how "privatization" looks, I don't think it's a problem.

 

 

 

ETA of course many of those kids could probably attend public school if that was what their parents preferred.  But the parents are thrilled for the option of the private school. 

 

There may be a middle population where the parents feel the kids would benefit from being in a regular classroom with a 1:1 aide or similar, but this option is not generally available in private schools currently - it isn't necessary since public schools provide it.  If there were no public schools, I don't see why the government could not pay for private schools to have aides for these kids.  Private schools already get government money for things like Chapter I tutoring, subsidized lunch, etc.  They do accept some special needs.  If they could get a 1:1 aide without paying for it out of tuition, they would probably accept kids in that situation.

 

FWIW not all private can (or are willing to accept) government money.

 

[SKL]

FWIW not all private can (or are willing to accept) government money.

 

 

True, but I think there would be enough that would in an all-private system, based on how many currently do.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

True, but I think there would be enough that would in an all-private system, based on how many currently do.

 

I don't think that is a reasonable assumption without something more than anecdotal data.  I imagine this varies a great deal by area, and from my own personal experience significantly more children received services in public school settings as compared to private.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

So people have a reference point on how well done public charters can be, this is the public charter school Susan Wise Bauer, Martin Cothran, and others were invited to in order to present their curriculum in a Language Arts Symposium with Great Hearts Academy teachers a couple of years ago.  Susan invited local boardies along to listen in and then get appetizers and drinks on her afterward. 

http://www.greatheartsamerica.org/great-hearts-life/great-hearts-curriculum/curriculum-overview/

Many children need this kind of option.  Most regular public schools aren't providing something this challenging.  When you have a wide range of options available through various systems, parents are more likely to find a good fit for their children.  So whatever keeps the widest range of options open is the better way for everyone. They're providing it at lower cost per student than lower quality options in the regular public schools.  Society needs that. Privatizing is considered the route most likely to lead to a wide range of options, so it's appealing to many people.  How that plays out in reality on a grand scale, I'm not sure.

[EmseB]

So back a few pages textbooks were mentioned as evidence that you can't just let private companies sell important stuff like educational materials that people have to buy. Except textbooks kind of prove my point.  There's about half a dozen textbook publishers that have a lock on the market and consumers have very little choice as to what they can buy, so there's no limit to what those companies can charge. Why and how did they get this lock on making everyone pay hundreds for an online code for a new edition that didn't need to be written?  Professors aren't buying the product so they don't really care what students have to pay.  So right there you're removing the consumer's choice from the price paid. Many book purchases are subsidized in some way. Mine were subsidized by my school as a way to get me to choose their school over others. Then, Pearson and Houghton-Mifflin and the big guys have huge lobbying power, so they create barriers for entry into the market, sue the little guys out of existence with high priced lawyers, and basically use government power to retain their lock on the market.  And they do that via K-12 education too, because if Texas or California orders a textbook, guess who controls the market for that textbook and crushes any competition?  One private business publishing company is given power by the public schools to control the entire market for a certain book. And this doesn't even touch on the market for standardized testing, which also funds publishing behemouths and allows them to charge whatever the heck they want.  If you want a standardized test for every school, you have to pay one company to make it and publish it.  Guess who really, really likes having the federal government involved in education for this reason?  Publishing companies! 

 

So. The college textbook market is directly enabled by and very similar to what we already have when it comes to the choices around schooling. It is largely funded by the government itself and has a huge incentive to make education as homogeneous as possible across the US.  Like the college textbook market public schools are the only choice for most consumers and administrators aren't spending their own money to run the schools and have no vested financial interest in getting rid of bloat or running more efficiently. Consumers are totally removed from the issue of costs and prices, and there's no incentive to keep costs down or run efficiently anywhere. It creates a market that lacks diversity, makes most schools mediocre at best, and really bad for those who are already struggling.

 

On the other hand, look at the diversity and choice and economy in the homeschool curriculum market.  This is nothing like the college textbook market or the public school K-12 market, and I think more representative of people who would be starting schools and closer to how an actually privatized market would look.  There's expensive, free, and everything in between, and you can get pretty much whatever you want to do.  The consumer pays directly and a lot of the consumers of said products are people on a tight budget. And a company that's operating unethically or inefficiently loses steam pretty quickly because word gets out fast, and/or they can't financially survive. Also, the people writing curriculum aren't doing it for kicks to become super mega rich; in general they are doing it because they love the topic and love education in some form or fashion. And they aren't able to make their curriculum exclusive, because if they start making new editions with online code bundles that people don't want, homeschoolers would drop all that like a hot potato because they have choices and options.

 

Anyway, just a late night thought after being out with the family all day NOT having a crab feast.

Edited September 5, 2017 by EmseB

[SamanthaCarter]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I don't think it is possible or advisable to completely privatize a basic education. I think that it's in a society's interest to have an educated populace, and that can't happen with a completely privatized system because it's a good that some people don't value for their kids. That's not the kid's fault.

Now, obviously, I think we can do better. I think that we need to have smaller administrative bodies that allow for innovation at the school level. The federal government needs to get out of the way and let states compete in innovation and output. I think we need to have better ways of evaluating teachers - difficult testing like what lawyers, nurses and CPAs go through. Unannounced observations of class, that kind of thing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk