Charter Schools: not in WA state

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sydde, Sep 5, 2015.

  1. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #1
    The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that charter schools are unconstitutional, invalidating a recent state ballot initiative that made them possible.

    The court feels that "common" schools, as defined in the constitution, must be answerable to the public, from whom their funding is taken.

    The right-wing views charter schools as healthy competition to a bloated and moribund public education system, encouraging the public schools to fight to get better.

    The left-wing sees them as a way to throttle teachers' unions, and perhaps try to work in some dubious curricula, like maybe bibles. So far, full privatization of government operations has had mixed results, mostly due to chasing every nickel of profit (as far as I can tell, private prisons has basically been a catastrophe).

    Has the court overstepped their authority? Or did they simply do the right/preferable thing here?
     
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #2
    If you can choose to homeschool, you should be able to choose the type of school your kid goes to.

    Each kid should get a cash allotment and be able to transfer that to the school of choosing. It's not the governments money to spend, it's the tax payers.
     
  3. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #3
    Who is preventing a parent from choosing a private school with their own money?

    What's being discussed here taking funds from the public school system (an disproportionate amount) and funneling them into schools that have the ability to kick kids out for whatever reason they choose, hence not a public service.

    At the underlined, yeah you should, but you shouldn't be able to defund 25% of the public school budget to concentrate it on >5% of the school aged population to do so.
     
  4. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #4
    As @NT1440 alluded, charter schools are not an alternative to public schooling. They are a business that will turn public schools into alternative schools.

    Charters don't have the same federal mandates as public schools (and should therefore not get any of those federal dollars), and don't have to follow the same state rules as public schools.

    Charters will keep the best performing students, and remove others at the first sign of behavioral or academic issues. Those students will go back to their public schools, who (by law), will be forced to take them.
     
  5. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #5
    This was an excellent decision. The government should force poor minority parents to keep their kids in failing public schools. It is wrong to give poor minority kids the same opportunity to enroll in a superior alternative school that wealthy white kids enjoy. What good is white privilege if you have to share your excellent education opportunity with poor minorities?
     
  6. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    Love your post
    Kids should have vouchers so they can attend the school of their choice
     
  7. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Their own money is what is being funnelled into the public school system, if I go to private school with my kid, my money should Follow my kid.
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    Since we're having a philosophical discussion here, as an adult without children, I shouldn't be paying into the system at all. If the cost of education was borne by those who use the system—as you seem to support—then you'd being pay more without the largesse of people like me subsidizing the cost of your offspring.
     
  9. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    Do you feel the same way about welfare? If you don't use it should you pay into it? If you never paid into it then you should have no access to it?
     
  10. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #10
    What happens when the school of their choice sends them back to public school because they have behavior problems?
     
  11. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    Money follows the kid
     
  12. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    That's funny because I don't feel that way about education.

    I said I was having a "philosophical discussion" with ZA, following his logic to a conclusion that he might find unappealing—having to pay the full cost of his child's education instead of having it subsidized by the whole of society.

    I find it's often the weak link in libertarian arguments when they forget how much they rely on society while they pretend they should be able to operate outside it.


    I'm not sure who this is supposed to apply to. What form of welfare are you talking about? How is the program funded and who are the users who haven't paid into it? Knowing those details would help.
     
  13. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    Education just like welfare are necessary evils :p
    I do feel parents should get vouchers that would go to the school of their choice, public or private .
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    Great. How do you feel about bearing the full cost of the child's education and not asking people who aren't using it to subsidize the system?
     
  15. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    I agree with you there. Single people should not be made to pay for the education of my kids. But we don't work that way , we have no choices as to where or how our taxes are paid /spent . We all pay into the tax pool and that goes towards welfare/education and worse, war .
     
  16. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #16
    Then they end up in public school, an alternative school, or juvy if the behavior is criminal.
     
  17. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #17
    And I'm going to disagree with you there. Childless people like myself should contribute to the education of other's children because I benefit from a more intelligent society. I want to pay taxes to encourage that kind of growth and progress.
     
  18. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #18
    This situation reminds me of Southern Dad's Help Wanted thread. He has a certain stretch of highway been home and work and kept seeing help wanted signs amid complaints of not enough jobs. And, assuming that all applicants had access to all jobs, naturally assumed that people where choosing not to take these jobs. That because he saw the jobs, everyone else saw the jobs too. But there was an underlying structure in place. People with money have so successfully isolated themselves from people without money that the people who are ready, willing and able to take the jobs he was complaining about, can't even see them:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/help-wanted-in-america.1729808/page-9#post-19053010

    US education has similar structural issues, for similar reasons. 1) People with money isolate themselves into broad areas away from those without, 2) education is funded with local property tax revenue, 3) creating disparity in educational opportunities between these areas. So what happens when you privatize this same structure? The people who already had access to the good schools have a new freedom to choose even better schools and the people who already didn't have access to good schools because they are to far away, still don't. Their districts remain underfunded and they remain to far away from the good schools to send their kids there.

    Now there are patchwork solutions. The state can step in and cover the funding difference between districts and provide transportation between districts and generally compensate for the shortfalls of the private system that are trying to compensate for the shortfalls of the public system that are trying to compensate for the structural deficits. But that usually only happens when a state also agrees to privatization and ends up costing more than just fixing the structural deficits in the first place. The root cause of school imbalance is our funding model. The solution needs to start with a balancing of our funding model.
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    I understand why it's done, we benefit with lower crime by allowing people on welfare , I still think parents should have vouchers so they could place their kids in the school of their choice
     
  20. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #20
    There's a natural assumption that because businesses are more efficient than government that we can hand things over to business and things will 'just go better'. The problem being that business isn't naturally more efficient. Competition is naturally more efficient. A monopoly business is worse than a monopoly government, since they are accountable to neither shoppers nor voters. So if you replace a public monopoly with a private monopoly, all you've done is socialize the profits. The prisoners would have to be given the ability to change between the prisons of their choice to even begin to approach the level of 'marketplace'.

    FFW to schools and its slightly different. If every student in every state could easily attend any school, privatization could at least make schools work for their customers (real competition). But the students only have access to the schools within their commuting distance. And no business is going to locate their best school in the worst area, only to make half as much per student (see local funding problem above). So parents with power get even more and parents without power get even less.
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #21
    Let's look at a form of welfare: food stamps.

    Many of these programs come with a number of limitations on how the money can be spent. If a food stamp recipient complained about those restrictions and said that they'd prefer the government just give them a lump sum of money so they could choose for themselves how they wanted to spend it, would you agree to that?
     
  22. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #22
    No, because you can use your food stamps just about anywhere.
     
  23. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #23
    You could get a public education anywhere.

    You are limited on the kinds of food products you can buy with your food stamps, just as you are limited with the kinds of educational products that government funds go pay for.

    In neither case does it make sense to hand out lump sums of money and let the recipient decide how they wish to spend it.
     
  24. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #24
    When Von's sucks you can go to stater bros, when the public education system sucks you don't have much choice unless you can afford private
     
  25. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #25
    Truth be told, this happens under the current public setup as well.

    Back when I went to school, oh so many moons ago, there were two high schools in the area serving the two cities in the county. The one you were assigned to was, very obviously, the one you lived nearest. Both were about equal in funding and quality.

    Over the last 10 years, the county has opened up two other high schools to better serve the population boom we've been experiencing. One in particular, Heritage High (you hear the word "heritage a lot around here), has been the center of a lot of controversy. It was built in the upper crust part of the country, where all the councilmen, and blah blah blah, and so and so live. More money was spent on it than any other. It looks more like a small college than it does a public high school. Now if it were just a bit of splurging, I doubt anyone would be bothered all that much. It's the fact that Heritage ended up pulling some of the best teachers from the other schools to teach at theirs that ended up earning everyone's ire.

    Because they're in the better part of town, they get the most funding. Because they get the most funding, they get the better teachers. It's no surprise that Heritage end up with kids who score better, and have more in Advanced Placement classes than the other kids in the area.
     

Share This Page