Comments on: Charters Recant: Money Matters

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:43:20 +0000

Labor blogging roundup

First up, three new additions to our labor weblog aggregator.

NET-workers is a labor centric group blog I hadn’t seen before. The authors describe themselves as “three young people who think workers’ rights are central to a progressive agenda and …

By: Communicate or Die

Communicate or Die — Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:20:39 +0000

UFT enters the “blogosphere”

New York City’s teacher union, the United Federation of Teachers, took a dive into the 21st Century last week by launching a blog. Called Edwize, the blog is described as being “a place where members, public education advocates and others can expres…

By: institutional memory

institutional memory — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:29:14 +0000

A whole BUNCHA clerical errors, no doubt. The spirit of Rod Paige is alive and well!

By: Mike in Texas

Mike in Texas — Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:45:03 +0000

Here in Texas a report was released showing charters actually spend more money per student than public schools.

Of course, our cheerleader commish of education is now claiming they were some “clerical errors” on the part of some of the charters and they actually spend less. No word on her about the other recent reports that charters in Texas are doing a worse job of educating students than the public schools.

By: msd2005

msd2005 — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 03:17:58 +0000

Kombiz, are you saying that someone who supports charter schools is an opponent of public education. Many charter founders are quite liberal and support charter schools specifically because they are public schools (and not vouchers for private schools). One aspect of charter schools is their competitive nature which is supposed to improve all public schools, and you can make a good argument that using market forces is a conservative impulse. On the other hand, charter schools can also be considered complementary to existing public schools, creating much needed options for different kinds of learners. Unions are about what is best for teachers, and I think many charter schools relish a non-unionized environment where the focus is on the kids. I think the reason many teachers want to work in charter schools is the opportunity to have more flexibility and professional input in their school climate and practices, and to be held accountable for results.

By: InstitutionalMemory

InstitutionalMemory — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:41:27 +0000

Conventional definitions are no longer applicable. Once upon a time, conservatives were strongly opposed to deficit spending, and liberals would have had major problems with the Supreme Court’s recent eminent domain decision.

By: kombiz

kombiz — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:16:47 +0000

I’m not sure there’s a conservative/Republican versus liberal/Democrat paradigm as you describe in the comment. There have been opponents of public education for a long time, and they tend to be conservatives. They also tend to be heavily against teachers belonging in a union, a view they hold about other workers in the workforce. Pointing this out doesn’t call up the political divide as there are many Republicans and even some conservatives who don’t share the view of Finn.

By: msd2005

msd2005 — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 14:47:18 +0000

I agree that these broad generalizations about the charter movement do not serve the debate very well. Especially given that each state does charter schools very differently. Moreover lumping charter schools into a conservative/Republican versus liberal/Democrat paradigm is not very helpful. While cost-savings may be one argument in favor of charter schools, I think most charter advocates are more concerned with raising academic achievement. Most people would agree that public education could do better with more money, but many also feel that putting more money into the current system as it stands is throwing money down a hole. Charter schools are supposed to add a level of accountability that might just justify adequate funding (if the poor performing schools are shut down as they should be). The fact that so many successful charter schools scramble for grants and private funds (that are available to district schools as well) should help us demonstrate what adequate funding really means within the context of meaningful reform practices.

By: curious2

curious2 — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:18:35 +0000

Thanks for these thoughtful comments, CitySue. I think I understand what you are saying.

I think some public-school critics think that adding more funding to such a badly managed system is highly wasteful. They think the current system does such a poor job with the current funds that they shouldn’t be trusted with more. Some of these same critics would trust charter schools with more funds and, moreover, would like to see them operate on a level playing-field with public schools to help better demonstrate their superiority. Other critics would be willing to spend more on the public schools in exchange for what they think are badly needed reforms.

I tend to think that the system shouldn’t need more money; that teachers can and should make more money if they operated in a more conventional system that rewarded merit and penalized incompetence, sometimes through termination; that there is an enormous amount of bureaucratic waste that has nothing to do with teachers but, rather, is a function of an organizational structure that could be massively streamlined, e.g. by terminating unnecessary administrators; that teachers should be accountable to principals, principals to superindentents, etc. all the way up to the mayor, who should be fired through election if he doesn’t produce results; and that seniority, tenure rules and excessive licensure requirements lead to mediocrity or worse.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you in the future.

By: CitySue

CitySue — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:04:32 +0000

Whatever you think of my tone (just having fun), you cannot deny that better results at lower costs (as a result of fewer rules and regulations), were a major selling point for charters. Now it seems they are backing away from that commitment. (And of course I agree that the funding disparity is more than special ed costs; it’s just that a valid comparison can’t be made on “average” per pupil expenditures when you have a different mix of students. Same goes in the other direction when you look at facilities costs.) And by the way, exactly what’s the difference between “money doesn’t matter” and “money won’t solve our problems.”? If you follow the statements and testimony of some conservative public-school critics, many do think and say that more or less money will not make a difference.