SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the public-money-for-private-profit dept.
Common Dreams reports
The Seattle Times reports that
The ruling--believed to be one of the first of its kind in the country--overturns the law [I-1240] voters narrowly approved in 2012 allowing publicly funded, but privately operated, schools.
Teacher and author Mercedes Schneider offers more on the Act:
As is true of charter schools nationwide, the charters in Washington State (up to the current ruling) were eligible for public funding diverted from traditional public schools. Charter schools were approved via a November 2012 ballot initiative (I-1240, the Charter Schools Act) in which charters were declared to be "common schools" despite their not being subject to local control and local accountability. And also like America's charters in general, Washington's charters are not under the authority of elected school boards.
Thus, Washington voters had approved to give public money to private entities--a one-way street that provided no means for such funds to overseen by the public.
[...] The new ruling (pdf)[1] states that charters, "devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operation", cannot be classified as "common schools," nor have "access to restricted common school funding."
[...] "The Supreme Court has affirmed what we've said all along--charter schools steal money from our existing classrooms, and voters have no say in how these charter schools spend taxpayer funding," said Kim Mead, president of the [Washington Education Association], in a statement.
"Instead of diverting taxpayer dollars to unaccountable charter schools, it's time for the Legislature to fully fund K-12 public schools so that all of Washington's children get the quality education the Constitution guarantees them," Mead continued.
The Associated Press reports that the state had one charter school last year, and eight more have opened in the past few weeks.
I pity Ms. Schneider's students if she routinely starts sentences with conjunctions--especially consecutive, redundant conjunctions.
[1] I had trouble with the connection.
(Score: 4, Disagree) by penguinoid on Monday September 07 2015, @07:34AM
I'm in favor of giving people money toward education, but I don't see why that should be limited to government-run schools. In fact, there's also a danger in having the government deciding how the children are educated (even if the only problem is large-scale bureaucracy). And there's definitely a danger in limiting competition (it's hard to compete with "funded at gunpoint even if you don't go"). What I'd go with is giving students a grant equal to the cost of the local public school, which they can also spend toward a private school. Maybe you could only take the funding if they also take a government-approved remedial course in "your parents are stupid hicks" to teach them stuff like "evolution is true" and "homeopathy is overpriced water".
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Monday September 07 2015, @05:43PM
In fact, there's also a danger in having the government deciding how the children are educated (even if the only problem is large-scale bureaucracy).
I want to consider what might happen if private companies started operating schools instead...
Microsoft: Users have no right to use or modify software in ways which the distributor prohibits. And providing the source code to any software program should be a criminal offense.
Sony: Modifying a computer to play region-locked content is stealing. There is no such thing as Fair Use of a copyrighted work. Sharing content, media, and other files is a moral crime.
AT&T: Anti-trust law is immoral and never works anyways. Worker unions are a communist plot to destroy the nation. Giving the government carte blanche access to all communications is patriotic and should never be questioned.
Google: All your personal details are belong to us.
Monsanto. EA. Apple. Pfizer. Comcast. Giving these private interests control over the minds of children and others in educational institutions sounds like the stupidest thing I could possibly imagine.
What I'd go with is giving students a grant equal to the cost of the local public school, which they can also spend toward a private school.
What you're arguing for are public school vouchers, which many states have debtaed (I think Florida is a particularly notable example).
I think what they really achieve are defunding of schools and a way to escape paying a tax. People argue, "I'm not sending my children to public schools, so why should I pay for them?" Well, public education (at least in theory) is a social necessity, so you get the benefits anyways, even if you or your family don't attend them. Perhaps vouchers should only be allowed on a financial need-basis. Well, let's suppose that all the smart children go to one school and the rest go elsewhere - then these other schools will just continue getting worse and that as well is a social problem.
My position is that education in the US is simply too structured. If schools served to educate students as they need, then overall outcome would be better. You can't treat all children the same way, but that's what policies in the US tend to do, and I think that's a strong contributor to why public schools are performing so poorly.
To summarize: my position is that yes, publicly funded education in the US is a great failure - but give that control over to private entities, and you'll end up with an education industry which is as terrible as your communications industries.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Tuesday September 08 2015, @05:26AM
People argue, "I'm not sending my children to public schools, so why should I pay for them?"
This is exactly my intent -- by having schools compete on equal ground, the crappy ones lose to the better ones. But if only one school gets subsidized, then that's where all the poor people's children will be forced to go, not because they think that is a good school but because they have no choice financially. If you prefer, think of it like all the schools becoming public schools (as in, the majority of the public can afford to send their kids there).
Incidentally, I don't see the benefit in a school that is forced to accept students -- certainly society needs such schools but good students being forced to go to such a school would just get held back by all the troublemakers that are sure to abound unpunishable in such a place.
Perhaps vouchers should only be allowed on a financial need-basis.
Is there any benefit to excluding the classes that pay for a program from the very thing they pay for? Seems like a good way to build up resentment.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.