S/O School Funding

[DawnM]

 

 

It's not really anything to do with caring or not caring.   It's about ways to solve an institutional problem, about how you vote.  Setting up a charter school system is not just a bunch people getting together to teach their kids.  It's setting up new political social institutions, regulations, laws, that will have an effect on the entire education system.

 

It's not just an act of individuals - which is why we don't stop people from opening or using private schools - that is a private action.  With charter schools people are harnessing the power and funds of the state, and creating a public institution.  Like all institutions it will have a life of its own, it will affect everyone in the community and uses the government of the community to function.  You can't justify actions taken by the state on grounds of individuals choices.

 

 

Then why did you target individuals in your post to which I responded?  I was merely responding directly to your post about individuals looking out for their own kids first.

 

As far as voting.....we have had liberals and we have had conservatives.  It isn't changing much, other than funding being cut more and more, and regulations increasing.  I started teaching when a conservative was in the office.  

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

If you want to change a failed system, it is so much less likely to happen if there is a way out for people - it takes political will and energy.  

 

 

 

I have the political will and energy to work on this as a 'retired' homeschool precisely because I did not break my heart futilely battling with the bland, non-education-centered, bloated bureaucracies that govern my school district and the one in the next town.  I am entirely sure that I am not alone in that.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe that it is wrong to save one if you can't save ten.  I think it is grossly immoral to save none if you could save one.  Plus I think those who save one, like Marva Collins, show the way to others who might be less skilled, imaginative, or hopeful, and enable/trigger/inspire them to save the rest.

 

I don't see charters as a permanent and entire solution to the public school problems.  I see them as a way to save the educations of a lot of kids, but not all of them, but also ultimately to transition the public school systems toward better teaching and also toward better advocacy. 

 

Take mainstreaming for example.  My view is that it is a worthy goal, but it favors some at the expense of others.  My kid, for instance, absolutely needed a quiet learning environment during her elementary and middle school years.  A disruptive or even noisy classroom would have made it impossible to learn.  Should that dominate the need of some kids to make noise all the time?  I don't know, but failing to even be able to ask that question, let alone advocate for a different learning environment, is counterproductive and also is very typical.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

NL has school choice, including the choice to send your kids to publicly funded schools of a particular religion* (and, if the only school of your minority religion is super far away, the state will even pay for transportation - this is very rare, since most kids walk or bicycle to schools within, well, walking/bicycling distance, but anyway). For secondary school, often the student decides which school to attend, rather than the parent (though of course the parent is the final decision-maker... but many parents let their kids choose). 

 

*Religious schools have two options - either only take kids of that religion, or take everybody. They can't just make some exceptions but not others. The vast, vast, vast majority take everyone, and they're generally also quite secular. 

 

Are the kids in the local schools trying to get out because they are drug-ridden, dangerous, and no learning happens?  

 

As far as I understand, the system you are talking about, much like ours or in the UK, is really about choice within a public system - it's a practical question of how to save different needs - those with learning disabilities, or those who are French, Catholic kids, etc.  

 

I's a practical way to serve some populations with special needs.  

 

If tomorrow bussing or driving became impossible, these systems could generally compensate because they are committed to the idea that all kids schools should be good - that is the principle.  The ability to choose isn't foundational, it's practical.

 

Once you institutionalize an alternate system that exists because the public system is so bad, you are talking about a whole different kind of school choice.  It's essentially a capitalist model - schools compete for the best outcomes, best students, and for funding - so the choice is foundational, it is what is supposed to drive excellence in all the schools.  The idea is that this will mean survival of the best, but it doesn't really work in a public service for all - the simplest way to thrive is to drop the more difficult and expensive students, and since they still have to be served, they get left to the local schools.

 

One is essentially a social service based model as in healthcare, and the other isn't.  You could probably make a system of charter schools that work as a real social service, but it would lose a lot of the performance advantages they have over a standard public model.

[Bluegoat]

Then why did you target individuals in your post to which I responded?  I was merely responding directly to your post about individuals looking out for their own kids first.

 

As far as voting.....we have had liberals and we have had conservatives.  It isn't changing much, other than funding being cut more and more, and regulations increasing.  I started teaching when a conservative was in the office.  

 

I'm not sure what you mean by targeting individuals.  

 

I think there is a big difference between what individuals do, and the considerations they need to have when they are using the power of the state.  Individuals can look out for their individual kids when the social policy doesn't.  They can't - or shouldn't - create social policy to protect their kids by failing to help others.  

 

Political pressure isn't just a matter of voting, or changing candidates.  It requires a political culture that wants to create robust social systems for everyone, among other things. You don't have that.  But this kind of solution is more of that, not less of it, even if that isn't the intent.

[Bluegoat]

I have the political will and energy to work on this as a 'retired' homeschool precisely because I did not break my heart futilely battling with the bland, non-education-centered, bloated bureaucracies that govern my school district and the one in the next town.  I am entirely sure that I am not alone in that.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe that it is wrong to save one if you can't save ten.  I think it is grossly immoral to save none if you could save one.  Plus I think those who save one, like Marva Collins, show the way to others who might be less skilled, imaginative, or hopeful, and enable/trigger/inspire them to save the rest.

 

I don't see charters as a permanent and entire solution to the public school problems.  I see them as a way to save the educations of a lot of kids, but not all of them, but also ultimately to transition the public school systems toward better teaching and also toward better advocacy. 

 

Take mainstreaming for example.  My view is that it is a worthy goal, but it favors some at the expense of others.  My kid, for instance, absolutely needed a quiet learning environment during her elementary and middle school years.  A disruptive or even noisy classroom would have made it impossible to learn.  Should that dominate the need of some kids to make noise all the time?  I don't know, but failing to even be able to ask that question, let alone advocate for a different learning environment, is counterproductive and also is very typical.

 

I would be surprised if they are a temporary solution, unless they fail to work even for the kids in them.

 

Once you have the laws and regulations and funding structures, who is going to get rid of those things?  People whose kids do well in them will tend to want to keep them, and they will argue for them on the same basis of individual choice.

 

Yes they still do nothing towards the basic problem the schools face.  

 

I think it's odd people keep talking about Marva Collins, or saying some kids should be saved.  If that is the model, personal public service, people should be opening and running charters for the kids being left in the dangerous public schools, kids that have problems in the regular classroom.  Small schools that can choose alternate educational approaches might be just what is needed for those kids.

 

Evidently, that is not what is happening, or those wouldn't be the kids left i the public schools.

Edited December 20, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Arcadia]

I think it's odd people keep talking about Marva Collins, or saying some kids should be saved. If that is the model, personal public service, people should be opening and running charters for the kids being left in the dangerous public schools, kids that have problems in the regular classroom. Small schools that can choose alternate educational approaches might be just what is needed for those kids.

 

Evidently, that is not what is happening, or those wouldn't be the kids left i the public schools.

Charter schools can’t be opened without approval by the county board of education or by the school district. As I quoted upthread, Elite Charter School is fighting to get approval from the county and it is going to be opened near where OP is if approved. Most of the time it is a long drawn battle with lots of behind the scenes lobbying.

[nixpix5]

I would be surprised if they are a temporary solution, unless they fail to work even for the kids in them.

 

Once you have the laws and regulations and funding structures, who is going to get rid of those things? People whose kids do well in them will tend to want to keep them, and they will argue for them on the same basis of individual choice.

 

Yes they still do nothing towards the basic problem the schools face.

 

I think it's odd people keep talking about Marva Collins, or saying some kids should be saved. If that is the model, personal public service, people should be opening and running charters for the kids being left in the dangerous public schools, kids that have problems in the regular classroom. Small schools that can choose alternate educational approaches might be just what is needed for those kids.

 

Evidently, that is not what is happening, or those wouldn't be the kids left i the public schools.

Actually, Washington has quite a few private schools with sliding scale and alternative private schools for students who are at risk. I worked at one in Bellevue which was teen focused. There is some elementary schools that do a great job but it takes a TON of man power. It is exhausting. The kids can be great but quite honestly I found their parents to be the rate limiter. I was in a meeting once with a parent about their deeply disturbed son and a crack pipe fell out of the parents jacket on my office floor. That was one example of many. These schools cannot take them all or they wouldn't be low ratio anymore and couldn't do a good job. Waiting lists can be very long. There are too many kids who need it. Then you cannot force a parent to make that choice for their child.

 

I am not sure what the answer is. We are certainly at a point in history in the US where the model doesn't work.

 

There is an all boys school in a neighboring city here is Washington that is predominately black. The staff if predominately black, they have uniforms and they take a much heavier handed...more military approach. Those kids do so well. They flourish, build confidence, make academic strides. Must people would turn their nose up or be aghast at that type of school yet it does what love, hearts and flowers on their homework cannot. These kids are getting into good colleges and their demographic is comparable to their public school peers who are failing, dropping out and so forth.

 

We even have a school that the people refer to as "the prison pipeline" How's that for heart? :( It is nauseating. It shows people's callousness and loss of hope.

Edited December 20, 2017 by nixpix5

[bethben]

 

What is a charter expected to do if a child with severe special needs applies and then needs, say a personal aide? Does the charter have to provide that? I can see an entire can of worms opening in these small schools. You can't expect a school of 90 kids providing a teacher for the blind, teachers fluent in Tagalog, Spanish, Russian, or ASL, OTs, etc. 

 

No, I don't think Charter's have to provide service to children with severe special needs.  They don't have the man power and/or choose not to provide those services.  I don't know of any charter schools that have any specialty therapist in house.  The kids who need special services seem to have to get them from a non-charter school.  For example, my dd's charter school doesn't have a physical therapist on staff despite the fact that there are at least two children who could benefit from that.  I guess they just do without?  That is a negative of charter schools.  I don't think they are obligated to educated children who need personal aids and therapies associated with that.  

[SKL]

Well I was in elementary school when our big city public school system went from bad to worse to just about worst.  There were no charter schools then.  It certainly wasn't the charter schools that drove the regular public schools and eventually the whole city into the ground.  Charter schools sprang up out of despair for the possibility of fixing public schools in time for anyone's actual kids to graduate.

 

That's the problem with long-term solutions.  You lose a whole generation waiting to see if they are going to work.  There has to be a short-term solution for those kids, whether that means doing it alongside the long-term stuff or throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Our public schools actually used to graduate many young adults who could not read.  Even the ones who could "read" may have gotten through 13 years without having read an actual book.  A high school diploma, which used to mean something in general back then, was a joke if you went to the big-city public school system.  These young adults weren't career ready ... the quality of their work ... the quality of life of the whole community suffered.  But hey - at least no one got special treatment??

 

It's nice to talk about how all the parents should have gotten together and fought the good fight day after day, year after year.  Thing is, parents work.  We get tired.  We get frustrated.  We don't have that much in common with all the other parents you want us to work with.  How many times should we bang our heads against the same wall before it's OK to quit?

 

The charter schools that sprang up when I was a tween were not "selective."  The families who had money had already either moved to a better district or enrolled in private schools.  The families who couldn't afford to do that were desperate for a solution.  Some of them started their own schools in the upstairs of storefronts or whatever, and there was enough demand to sustain them.

 

In an ideal world, the collective desire for better schools would somehow magically make better schools happen.  But that's not the real world.  Real kids need real solutions. 

[luuknam]

Are the kids in the local schools trying to get out because they are drug-ridden, dangerous, and no learning happens?  

 

As far as I understand, the system you are talking about, much like ours or in the UK, is really about choice within a public system - it's a practical question of how to save different needs - those with learning disabilities, or those who are French, Catholic kids, etc.  

 

 

I was only responding to your statement that countries with well-performing school systems generally don't have a school choice. I don't know about other countries - but Arcadia has mentioned Singapore, I have mentioned NL, and both tend to do pretty well. Whether you want to play a semantics game about it being choice within a public system (which a lot of kids don't have in the US) is up to you. And no, for the most part, kids aren't trying to get out of schools because they're that bad. A school like that would have gone under ages ago, because of school choice. It's not like school choice is a new thing in NL. 

 

The US has many issues, but banning charters, magnets, private schools, and homeschooling isn't going to just solve the problem - if you make people use the public schools, people with money would just move to a better school district (just like many already do). 

[Arcadia]

I agree, 12M is large, and it's clearly not from just one thing, whether that thing is the operating budget or the charter school or whatever.

Oak Grove School District in San Jose is also facing a 12.8M deficit in the future.

 

“In the breadth of school closures, Oak Grove stands out in the region, but gut-wrenching cuts will be coming soon to schools throughout the state, brought on by the same culprits forcing Oak Grove’s hand:

 

Huge increases in payments to teacher and support-staff pensions. Oak Grove’s went from $5.06 million in 2013-’14 to $10 million this school year — or 10 percent of the general-fund budget. The increases are mandated by the state in an effort to trim unfunded pension obligations.

 

State support for education is still lagging at the level it was before the Great Recession, when the state cut education funding for several years.

 

Post-recession pay raises granted to employee unions asking for sizable increases.

 

Declining enrollment, as the region’s high housing costs send families with young children fleeing to more affordable areas. Oak Grove has lost 1,800 students since a high in 1996-’97, a 15 percent drop.

...

Without trimming spending, Oak Grove faces a deficit of $12.8 million starting in 2019-20, according to Superintendent Jose Manzo. Closing a campus will save about $600,000 to $700,000 annually, Hawkins said.†https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/26/in-san-jose-district-identifying-schools-to-close-a-gut-wrenching-prospect/

[kiwik]

I think it's been a failure almost everywhere. There was an article I read yesterday about the union that represents teaching assistants - they released pictures of assistant's who had been injured on the job. Really serious injuries, broken bones, bites, etc.

 

That is not on for teachers, kids, anyone.

 

I can't imagine wanting it as a parent of that kid, either. If my child is that violent, I am looking for a more specialized classroom, not full inclusion, one where they can really work on helping that child learn to cope, and also learn academically. I knew some parents when I was in school who were big into advocating for full inclusion - their daughter had Downs, but was not disruptive or anything like that. They were super-passionate over the principle, but I wonder what they think about it now - the mom was a teacher.

 

Even if it is just learning differences, every time you add a kid with that extra need for planning, you are going to have to have less other kids - it's not like there are more hours in the day.

I have a kid with intermittent violent episodes. He is gifted and I suspect 2e but I can't get it pinned down. He didn't get any of his needs met or suppoert in any way and to be honest wouldn't have got them met if NZ had special ed classes. More support would go a long way.

 

Eta as it is he is one of the many kids who don't cope with school but are not bad enough to qualify for help.

Edited December 27, 2017 by kiwik

[MarkT]

1) I have a question for you all in big districts. What is the difference between a magnet school and a charter? Charters take kid by lottery, right? But magnets can pick and choose--this kid shows talent in music or math, right?

 

2) What is a charter expected to do if a child with severe special needs applies and then needs, say a personal aide? Does the charter have to provide that? I can see an entire can of worms opening in these small schools.

3) You can't expect a school of 90 kids providing a teacher for the blind, teachers fluent in Tagalog, Spanish, Russian, or ASL, OTs, etc. 

1) I just looked at nearby very large school district which has many magnet schools. No scores of any kind on the application so not really different from charter schools here. Only very popular charters use lotteries. Most have some space.

 

The magnets are funded as pure public schools the charters are public but use a different funding scheme.

This is AZ YMMV.

 

2) Typically a parent of a severe special needs child (I am one of them) would avoid charter schools because they must allow admittance but do not have the facilities to handle those children.  Many have rules such as dress codes that a special needs student can't really conform to.  For example, my other gifted child attended a charter where the students had to wear a tucked-in polo shirt. For my special needs guy this would have been a show-stopper - he can't stand collar shirts and never has it tucked in.  I am OK as a taxpayer because AZ gives less per charter student than to pure publics and IMHO this is why.

 

3) No school I know of in AZ is forced to have multilingual services.  And I concur.  That is not special ed anyways.