Mass. advocates urge end to cap on charter schools

Why can't we be as quick and blunt in characterizing the Governor's and the union's position on this issue as we are when commenting on many Republican stances? Quite frankly - the Governor and the unions are on the side of injustice here and they are displaying an utter lack of compassion for our children - particularly in underprivileged communities. Until they support an increase in charters - which have had proven success - they are as guilty of continuing the disparities in education as any other apologist for discrimination and public neglect.

These people are clueless. State tax revenues are way down, we are in a financial crisis, and these people want more expensive charter schools? Who is going to pay for them?

Do charter schools cost more? If so how much and why?

Pablo, charters draw no more money per student than any public school, whatever per pupil expenditure the district gets for that child goes to the charter instead - same cost to the state, just to a different payee. Charters are not costly, they are models of efficiency since they produce vastly improved results with the same dollars. What the state can't afford is to allow youth to languish is failing, bureaucratic, huge districts that are chronically under-performing.

charter schools are cheaper and the kids are better educated for the most part.

Excuses, excuses that all we get from the Governor and unions. Charter school don't really cost more and without them and forcing kids to go to inferior schools is an injustice.

There's no logic behind a cap on the number of charter schools; it's micromanagement by the legislature who are puppets of union thugs. Time to make the count of charter schools the responsibility of each district to decide instead of dictating it from Beacon Hill.

It could be argued that "vastly improved results" are the end result of Charter schools being able to expel or chose their students from those that apply, as well as "effective" instruction. Public schools have to service every child who shows up at that school no matter what issues they bring with them. Further, it could also be argued that the students who do apply to these schools have a strong support network at home that value their child and his/her future. Why not volunteer a week in a school that is in an underprivileged community and talk with the actual administration, teachers and students before laying blame?

.

"Public", which have to service the child regardless of their behavioral issues to refuse students. Charter schools can expel students and refuse to accept others. These students end up in regular public schools will become a dumping ground for the difficult or expensive to educate students, including those with antisocial behaviors and/or learning disabilities or physical handicaps.

Pablo, that you a teacher's union supporter, or even worse a member of the teachers union, would lie about public charters schools costing more money than any other public school is reprehensible! It demonstrates just how much
public teachers unions don't care about children in the least. Have you no shame at all?

Charter schools are cheaper because parents that need expensive special ed services for their children keep them in the public schools because that is where the services are located. Charter schools shift the students that don't need services (and are cheaper to educate) out of urban/poorly funded public schools. Eventually, (if they aren't there already) urban public schools will simply become warehouses for sped kids.

As a former charter school high school teacher, I saw first hand that the charter school, cookie-cutter approach does more harm than good to all students and their families. Those on IEPs were shamed and singled out as being less than the other students who were expected to follow militaristic rules to get accepted to college. Charter schools do not work with proportionally similar special needs students as do the REAL public schools therefore they are draining cash from the school districts who must provide a free, appropriate public education to ALL students. At the charter schools, there is no transition planning for these urban students from high school to college and as a result, while 100% of each class passed MCAS and were accepted to college, nearly 100% dropped out of college during their freshman year. And by then, the founding directors were off to another state with their pockets full of Massachusetts education dollars and the naive hopes of another poor community of parents and their children. The current model of cheap labor with expectations that teachers will work 7:30 to 5:00pm daily, and more, is not sustainable because if those are the published hours? you can be sure that teachers are working at least 12 hours a day. What kind of role model is that for young people to become responsible, productive and stress reducing adults? The unions don't like charter schools because they are NOT good for teachers, they are not good for students and they are not good for administrators. Charter schools are good for those who write the charters, get the funding, run a tight business and leave town with their pockets full.

Dream on folks, Charter schools cherry pick the most involved parents and leave out children with special needs. I have several former charter school students in my public school special ed classroom.

There's plenty of logic for a cap on stand-alone little charter school districts. When you add a new school with all the overhead of a school, plus all the district-level administrators, you get a little school with very large administrative costs. The state doesn't pay for the stand-alone charter schools, the towns are forced to pay without any vote in town meeting. I favor allowing school districts to change a percentage of their schools to district-operated charters (no new schools, no new bureaucracy), but no more stand-alone little charter school districts who are not accountable to the taxpayers.

No one cares how many charters there are. (By the way not all studies agree they are more effective). The real question is how they are funded, and whether that funding formula will drain needed resources from public school students. Public schools are already under great financial stress.

Is the US Post Office better or worse because of FedEx and UPS?

If Charter Schools were really better at educating, they would take on a few failing public schools and put they money where their mouth is. Otherwise they are just cherry picking the best and the brightest and then saying that you are great at what you do proves NOTHING.

The amount of ignorance on this issue is astounding! I am ashamed to live in Massachusetts. Charter schools ARE PUBLIC schools. In fact, they operate with LESS money than traditional public schools. These are both FACTS (I am a charter school board of trustee member). The schools are funded in the same way as a traditional public school with one exception: charter schools get NO money for facilities. Therefore, they need to actually manage costs in a way that shows accountability at the local level (a new concept for teachers' unions). So my only question is this: what particular part of charter schools spark fear in the unions? You guessed it: the "C" word: competition. Let's try to keep the focus on facts please...

The ignorance on this, and other topics, says a lot about the quality of education that people get in the teachers union controlled schools.
Our country has been systematically dumb'd down since the "great society" left wing movement in the sixties. The answer to every problem has only one solution: grow the bureaucracy, but don't hold public employees (ie. union teachers) accountable for results.